Here it is. Lets see your argument.

here is what, what do you want to see.

I want to see Ozi's scientific and mathematical refutation of Evolution.

hmm.. gonna wait for Ozi and his gang to argue about Evolutionary History and Alternate History,
this should be interesting.. * sits and waits for the popcorn to be done *.

Lets found out first who believes that the Evolution Theory is Fact. Although Stellar did admit its a theory,. but for some reason he will believe it as Fact.

Well Its a huge topic, so this how genrous I am, you tell me what aspects you believe are true or cannot be refuted. and I will destroy it for you. Im waiting

how is a person with no credentials in history or science going to destroy it?

Easy i got to the people with the credentials and use their material.... then its your job to bring the counter argument and so forth.... pretty easy, but believe me, you wont have much to return with on fossils, molecular level evolution, RNA, DNA Protien Cells, Amino acids, etc etc etc etc

The process of evolution (the gradual change of heritable traits) is a fact; everything we know about the subject comprises the theory of evolution. This is a "scientific theory", not a "theory" as in common usage where the word refers to an unproven hypothesis.



Variable allele frequencies.

What?



Ok, how about, to start... the fact that mutations do occure. Do you agree/disagree?

so the creationists say we are 6 or 7 thousand years old. well then i live beside a lake where there are drawings on the rocks that date 10.000 years old and the place can only be reached by boat.

Theory - Oxford Dictionary explanation..

set of ideas formulated to explain something opinion, supposition: statement of the principles of subject.

So where does your meaning of theory fit in.

Above are the few example of mutations, which are always accidental and harmful. Mutations is highly specialised organism like humans, or even a fly, would be detremental or harmful.

Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment[attachment=4111
5:mutatedhand.jpg]Click to view attachment


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


Left : A normal fruit fly (drosophila). Right : A fruit fly with its legs jutting drom its head ; a mutation induced by radiation.

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

The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure and random effects can only cause harm to this structure. B.G. Ranganathan states:

Mutations are small, random, and harmful. They rarely occur and the best possibility is that they will be ineffectual. These four characteristics of mutations imply that mutations cannot lead to an evolutionary development. A random change in a highly specialised organism is either ineffectual or harmful. A random change in a watch cannot improve the watch. It will most probably harm it or at best be ineffectual. An earthquake does not improve the city, it brings destruction.9


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

Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect - evolution to higher forms of life - results from mutations practically all of which are harmful?10

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


In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge... or even a new enzyme.11

Another researcher, Michael Pitman, comments on the failure of the experiments carried out on fruit flies:

Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type.12

The same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed in human beings have deleterious results. On this issue, evolutionists throw up a smokescreen and try to show even examples of such deleterious mutation as "evidence for evolution". All mutations that take place in humans result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, Down syndrome, albinism, dwarfism or cancer. These mutations are presented in evolutionist textbooks as examples of "the evolutionary mechanism at work". Needless to say, a process that leaves people disabled or sick cannot be "an evolutionary mechanism"-evolution is supposed to produce better forms that are more fit to survive.

To summarise, there are three main reasons why mutations cannot be pressed into the service of supporting evolutionists' assertions:

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 impair it. Indeed, no "useful mutation" has ever been observed.

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.

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 casual 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.

Briefly, it is impossible for living beings to have evolved, because there exists no mechanism in nature that can cause them to evolve. This agrees with the evidence of the fossil record, which demonstrates that this scenario is far removed from reality


B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1988.
10 Warren Weaver, "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, Vol 123, June 29, 1956, p. 1159.
11 Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48.
12 Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70.

Look guys im off out now, wont be back for a while, if we are gonna do this properly, then we need to go through stage by stage. topic by topic. Stellar gave a good starting point. Therefore dont bombard me with loads to answer, im only one man. so go easy and i will try and anwser as much as possible.

Is there something in that explanation about a theory that you do not understand?

Well let me see your explanation of the word theory. How can one thing be called theory and then imply well its acutally not, we just like calling it that, but in this term its actually does not mean supposition or ideas in main.

look up 'scientific theory'...

Excellent article Ozi

Why dont you get me the explanation... just cause you put the word scientific infront of theory, the meaning does not change to fact. Its still a theory, a hyphesis, a supposition, based on very little evidence and most cases ideas, in order to get it established as fact, the theory has to be proven, like einstien did with the theory of relativity.

the·o·ry /ˈθiəri, ˈθɪəri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -ries.
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.

There are many definitions for this word, not all of them may apply to the science of evolution. But, in general evolution is a theory.

Can we have your own words please, instead of ones copied and pasted from this website?

Most mutations are harmful, some aren't. Look at sickle-cell anemia, it's the result of a mutation and it offers protection against malaria. Not to mention, people are biased in pointing out a mutation. If a person has a mutation which is extremely harmful, i.e. similar to the ones you posted images of, we can tell that it's a mutation and that it was harmful straight off the bat. If a 'modest' mutation occurs that makes a very subtle yet beneficial change i.e. one changing fur colour we're not going to pay much notice, but it's still driving a change.

Always harmful?

If you take HIV, it is mutations that have allowed its continued survival. The mutations were definitly not harmful to it.

So what it still all agrees, that its in general a theory, therefore not concrete. But lets say for argument sake its not a theory, well it is taught as fact at all academic levels. Even if i accept its not a theory, i can still disprove the whole damn thing, especially if the fundemental basis of something is flawed, then all th pretty dressing around the edges is meaningless, thus rendering it false.

From Wikipedia:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory.



Similarly with bacteria, if no mutations were beneficial we wouldn't be spending so much money trying to deal with the antibiotic-resistant bacteria in hospitals.

Change of fur in what, and by the way what i posted is simply the tip of the ice berg, evolution on a molecular level is impossible.

you keep saying you can disprove all this stuff but all you do is keep copying and pasting stuff from other websites. You said you yourself can do it and so far you haven't proven anything except for stuff you've got from abunch of crackpot websites that don't know what they are talking about. Reading through your posts have been highly entertaining though.

Ok, so the scientific, theory does not mean a hypothesis, well its does , but is basis are built on observation, predicting, logical and testable substance. Well its still a theory, and can be wrong, therefore always revised, therefore not established, get the point. The only reason you think its established fact is because you have been taught that it is. No body told you most of it is supposition. So something which is taught as fact, maybe wrong in place, and need to be revised, precisely why its a theory, new evidence comes and changes the basis of certain concepts in the theory, therefore, its never been established fact

Raptor, Ozi already said he's going to use the works of professionals to make his points. I don't think too many of us in this forum are credentialed, lettered, acadamians. (We wouldn't be here if we were). But, it does appear we - in general - have a few brains and are challenging what we've learned. Personally, I think humans were always human. I think we can adapt to our environment gradually, which is not the same thing as mutating. When I went to school, they told us that if a human stood with his feet in water for X number of years, he would develop webbed feet. Well, since no one is going to stand in water that long to prove this point, it's just a theory.

Obvisouly with your evolutionary head on, your not reading things accurately are you. Bacteria is no way a specialised organism like human. Show me mutations from complex organism which are beneficial, not on a molecular level, mutations at the level are also harmful, but its a rarety when its not harmful.

Gotta go, be back soon


plus, i did say i will get the info from credible sources. You can check the wensite yourself, I cut and paste to anwser the specific point, and not go off on a tangent. Whether i cut and paste, i dint say they are my words did I, plus i provided the reference. And for your knowledge, I have the book at hand.

How about this one, for starters?

Are you and bacteria and hiv as complex as each other. i dint think so. Im and the authors refered to complex living organisms, animals and human.

In general, the way I see it, a theory is a proven and substantiated hypothesis. A theory becomes a law when its proven, substantiated or not refuted, and accepted by the scientific community.

The theory of evolution will never be a law unless it passes the "law of causation;" specifically, one must scientifically provide evidence of "the first cause." What started it all? Where did it all come from?

Yeh really, but never mind i will come to that soon too. i remember i guy finding a gay gene and it was fornt page news, until a week later went it was found the guy who claimed it was gay and forged the results, the week later, in the same paper, it was in the middle of the paper in a tiny column hardly visible. This usaully happens, but dont worry we shall get to it in good time.

i really need to to go, see u later

Well Evolutionist claim it was accidental and it all started from nothin.

Again, you can't have something from nothing! That is a scientific law!

I see. So some crazed Lactose Intolerant team of scientists must have forged the results. Obviously.

Then you were taught wrongly and your teacher should have been fired. This YouTube video demonstrates how it really works quite nicely, if you really want to learn how evolution works, watching this will be ten minutes well spent.

Pretend we have a population of animals which benefit from adapting to an aquatic environment. Which individuals will be best suited? Perhaps ones with the least fur (allowing them to move through the water with less drag), maybe the ones with the most webbed toes (allows them to paddle through the water with more efficiency), perhaps the ones able to hold their breath the longest?

Each individual that is better adapted to the environment will be more likely to survive and reproduce then those who aren't. It isn't going to be clear cut, there won't be significant change on the order of each generation, but allele frequencies will change. Over many generations some genes will be lost (e.g. ones providing lots of fur, non-webbed digits), new ones will be introduced by mutation and become fixed in the population. So this population of animals may gradually develop webbed toes, because the individuals with the webbed-most toes will be more successful then those which aren't. Better idea of how it works now? It doesn't happen during a single generation, evolution is the change of heritable traits.

Copying and pasting long stretched articles brings in lots of unnecessary content and makes it a lot harder to carry out a concise debate. It's much easier if you keep what you're saying short and to the point.

Evolution is not "just a theory" in the sense that it's unconfirmed. No theory in science can ever be confirmed, even if the theory was absolutely correct we would not call it a fact. "Theory" and "Scientific theory" are two different things, I explained this a post or two back.



It's specialized for it's own purposes. Why does it matter whether it's less complex or not? It's still a mutation, it's still beneficial.

Yes, you can.

"In the beginning was the Word"...

See?

Evolution covers it all though, not just complex organisms. You claimed all mutations are detrimental. I proved otherwise. What change occurs on the molecular level between what you term as a "complex" and an "incompex" organism that prevents similar beneficial mutations in complex organisms?

Guys pls dont post anything for me now, i wont have time. I will be on again tomorrow afternoon GMT - 2- 3-pm.

However, complxities do matter, the number of protein cells we are made up if incomparison to an ameoba is entirely different, but thats a different argument. The artcile i sent says clearly that mutation in complex organism, is always harmful. im not contested at the moment the mutations at lower levels are harmful or not. but in complex organisms it is. see evolutionist tell great fairy tales about animals having to adapt and gradually having webbed feet etc. Survival of the fittest. The book i have addresses this too. I wil put forward an argument for this too.


Stellar, you still aint understand the point, mutations at lower levels have different impacts. if mutation occurred in complex organism, its harmful, the complxity inthe organism is too much , read the article thoroughly to understand. This is just the begining, wait till i get down to molecular level, then you will understand how evolution is so full of it. Its an ideaology bron of secularism and capatalism, promoting the idea of individualism and selfishness.

Stop generalising. That is not true. Infact, I see more religious people making those claims than anyone else.

Guys, this topic has gotten off to a bad start.

One cannot debate a scientific subject as if one were at a bar, after having downed a few beers. Neither can one expect any sort of logical progression (or destruction, to be fair to Ozi) if one begins at a random place and proceeds to jump all over the place.

Most of us "evos" (as the current term seems to be) have already spotted several red flags that lead us to believe we understand what Ozi is going to do. Let's not do that. We have seen these threads go that way so many times; really, what's the point of starting another thread and running it along the same track.

This is what I propose: Ozi wishes to dismantle evolution. Fine. Let's approach this like the educators and scientists that we are meant to be. We start at the beginning, we define our terms, we move on to the first step, the conclusion that step leads us to, and so forth.

Ozi, when scientists speak of evolution, they understand from the long years of studying it that there are two different definitions of the word, and context is needed to determine which is being used. There is the general theory of evolution, which is merely an umbrella term used to gather all the various evolutionary ideas together in much the same way that erosion is not a single process in itself, but rather it refers to a variety of different forces which shape the world. Then there are the scientific theories. These are another thing entirely.

The first thing to realize is that dictionaries do not give multiple definitions of a word just for the heck of it. The different definitions are designed to be used under different circumstances. The definition you posted seems to be two different definitions posted as one. I took the liberty of looking up the word in the Oxford Dictionary and these are the first two given:

Jacket image of the Compact Oxford English Dictionary


Theory

• noun (pl. theories) 1 a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. 2 an idea accounting for or justifying something.

Now that we know the two definitions are seperate, we can understand how something can be "just a theory" and how something can be a "scientific theory" and be another thing entirely. Something that is "just a theory" is nothing more than an informal idea proposed for explaining an relatively unimportant premise. An idea of why girls do the wacky things they do proposed over the watercooler can be described as "just a theory". A scientific theory, on the other hand, is at another level. A scientific theory is a formal explanation, and it formally explains a very specific and very defined process in a known and accepted format. A scientific theory must meet all five prerequisites of scientific methodology, the same prerequisites that every single other scientific theory in the entire world of science must meet, be it mathematical, biological, or quantum in nature. A scientific theory must go through peer review, a process so intensive and anal that only the very best of theories survive. If data is missing, inconclusive, or not credible, the theory dies. If something remains unexplained or unaddressed, the theory dies. Heck, if the report isn't written in proper APA format, it doesn't even get looked at. Only after a paper survives peer review will it be accepted for publication. Publication refers to the dissemination of the theory to the scientific field it belongs to. That means that it gets published in a scientific journal, a dry, picture-less, mechanical review paper used by the experts to review the important contributions to their field. That means that after the twelve peer-reviewers who looked at it in depth are done, the entire population of experts looks at it and scrutinizes it in their turn. Even then a scientific theory is never mistaken as a scientific fact. A scientific theory is a theory that has not yet been disproven or falsified, and until it has, it is considered to be correct. As you can see, a scientific theory is no more "just a theory" than Joan of Arc was "just a Frenchgirl".


Now, in another thread, you asked that someone present a scientific fact and you would proceed to dismantle it with science. Well, here it is: Meiosis

Meiosis is an evolutionary process in which the genome is mechanically pulled apart during the process of replication. This is how one cell becomes two. The problem is that, out of the dozens of fragments that are pulled apart in the process, not all of them get put back in the same place in the new cell, and as a result, when they get replicated, they no longer reflect the same information that was in the original cell. The differences can be as simple as an inversion, in which a sequence of data is simply upside down, it can be a recombination, in which two different fragments get joined together and become a new piece of information (in the same way that the word DOG and the word HOUSE are two separate pieces of information, but when put together, describe a third piece of information). Then there is the radical mutation, in which a fragment is glued incorrectly onto the new genome, and extra amino acids are drafted to fill in the empty spaces, creating, in effect, brand new information that was not before present in any form in the original cell.

Ozi, would you agree with what I have presented so far?

your right some religious people believe this too. the reason they do is, because they claim to believe ina god, who has the power to make something from nothin. But evloution claims onthe other hand that it all happened by accident. Tell the ones that dont.

ok for argument sake evolution is not a hypothesis, but its still flawed and has no foundation. You too have refered to mutations, at a molecular level, but granted you say within a complex organism, i dont have the time right now to deal with this, but i like your approach and appreciate it. I will be back with a rebuttal on this tomorrow. See you all l8r

Sorry, that's not an argument. Mutations operate in the exact same way despite the complexity of the organism. It happens on the genetic level (obviously), the phenotype of the organism is irrelevant.

Complex organisms have much longer generations, it's not easy to observe a beneficial mutation occur and become fixed in the population; so to a laymen it's just about possible to get away with saying that beneficial mutations aren't possible in complex organisms. However your anti-evolutionist authors must concede that bacteria experience beneficial mutations because they have much shorter generations and it's extremely easy to observe a beneficial mutation taking hold of a population.

That's it. The only difference is ease of observation.

However beneficial mutations can and have been observed in more complex organisms, examples have already been posted.

I quite understand the impact of the mutations. I don't need an article to tell me about it. The complexity of an organism playes no role into whether or not beneficial mutations can occure. What it does is it makes it much more difficult to spot a beneficial mutation, because there are many, many more factors taking part. It means that beneficial mutations are much more rare, and the evolutionary process is slower. This is why bacteria is ideal, because it is more simple, so a single mutation has a greater effect, and its lifespan is shorter, hence more mutations occure in a shorter timespan.



Evolution makes no such claim.

Most of the scientific community I know state that the observable mutations in nature are too minor to have an evolution and or development of a new speicies.

scientific theory: systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

In attempting to explain things and events, the scientist employs (1) careful observation or experiments, (2) reports of regularities, and (3) systematic explanatory schemes (theories). The statements of regularities, if accurate, may be taken as empirical laws expressing continuing relationships among the things or characteristics observed. Thus, when empirical laws are able to satisfy curiosity by uncovering an orderliness in the behaviour of things or events, the scientist may advance a systematic scheme, or scientific theory, to provide an accepted explanation of why these laws obtain.

Empirical laws and scientific theories differ in several ways. In a law, reasonably clear observational rules are available for determining the meaning of each of its terms; thus, a law can be tested by carefully observing the things and properties referred to by these terms. Indeed, they are initially formulated by generalizing or schematizing from observed relationships. In the case of scientific theories, however, some of the terms commonly refer to things that are not observed. Thus, it is evident that theories are imaginative constructions of the human mind—the results of philosophical and aesthetic judgments as well as of observation—for they are only suggested by observational information rather than inductively generalized from it. Moreover, theories cannot ordinarily be tested and accepted on the same grounds as laws. Thus, whereas an empirical law expresses a unifying relationship among a small selection of observables, scientific theories have much greater scope, explaining a variety of such laws and predicting others as yet undiscovered.

A theory may be characterized as a postulational system (a set of premises) from which empirical laws are deducible as theorems. Thus, it can have an abstract logical form, with axioms, formation rules, and rules for drawing deductions from the axioms, as well as definitions for empirically interpreting its symbols. In practice, however, theories are seldom structured so carefully.

LINK-> scientific theory

You're right. Small changes in a gene pool (new genes arising through mutation, changing allele frequencies) are commonly referred to as "microevolution". These small changes accumulate over time to create large phenotypic changes, or "macroevolution".

A single mutation won't create a new species. Many, many years of accumulating different mutations will.

All right then, if you agree that meiosis does result in mutations, and the vast majority of mutations are inconsequential in regards to affecting the organism, we can continue.

The theory of Speciation is when one species separates into two species. A species is defined as a given type of animal which is unable to maintain successful reproduction with a separate type of animal. In other words, two animals who cannot successfully reproduce are considered to be separate species (note that this is about maintaining reproduction, not just one-shot events, like a horse and donkey producing a mule).

Speciation occurs for a variety of reason including physical, social, and geographic, but for the purposes of this argument, we will focus on the genetic reason for speciation. Genetically, when the genome of one animal is not able to successfully match up to that of another animal, then fertilization will not occur. If you will recall, gametes only have half the genetic information required for successful reproduction. The half-genome in that gamete must match up perfectly in order to become fertilized. If the genome of two gametes are different, say for instance they have the wrong number of sequences, then it will fail.

Ozi, do you understand so far?

In the above quote we notice that the Dr. has said that the "mutations" were not detected in the gene itself, but in a nearby region of the DNA that controls the ACTIVATION of the gene. Meaning the gene was already in place - pre-programmed into the DNA to be activated or not, depending on the situation, by - "different selective pressures".

All this in just one post!!!

So, you think all mutation is harmful then?

Or are they harnful and ineffectual, or harmful or ineffectual? Please make up your mind.



Really? Is double-jointedness deleterious then? How about male-pattern baldness?

Are you assuming the 'perfect' human being and then assuming any deviation from that 'perfect form' is a mutation? You know very little about diversity then.



See above. You are talking only very specific mutations, not ALL mutations.



So, we are not very good at manipulating DNA in a lab. So what? This is not indicative of what happens in nature.



Again with the general assumption? How about (in humans) the ability of the individual to run faster? Or to be stronger, or smarter? These aren't useful?



Linky

However, I suspect you are trying to be tricksy and will suggest this just means more of the DNA is expressed, rather than anything being added. It does not matter, because 'information' does not mean 'DNA' in biology.