"100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID!"

reality is a combination of two opposing forces.

one which is inertial, involutionary, static, past oriented.
another which is creative, evolutionary, dynamic, future oriented.

the interplay of these to forces can be observed at any level of reality being it physical, social, metaphysical, mental or else

and even this dual understanding tells more about our subjective understanding of reality, than about reality itelf

Last Edited by andreidita on 12/09/2012 01:17 PM

"Very strange" is subjective and has to do with perception. You don't get out much do you. Very strange creatures are everywhere.

hehe, i get out quite a lot. and the 'strangeness' you talk about becomes just simple, boring and predictable after you add understanding to perception :)

i was talking about the inexistence of abominations at the level of natural species. if random mutation is really random than we would get quite a lot of species unfit in the long run, but fit enough to survive for at least a few generations. and we don't have that

Last Edited by andreidita on 12/09/2012 01:27 PM

Sure we do. As I said...it's a matter of perception. There are creatures in the deep ocean we haven't discovered as of yet and some of the ones we have are down right frightening.

Firstly, Id like to apologize for the sarcasm in my last message. I wasn't sure if you were trolling or not, but now I see that you are being sincere. We clearly have very different beliefs about this topic. I'm ok with that.



Uncredible because I accept the scientific method. It's ok if you don't. We can agree to disagree.

I don't think "Evos" retreat behind this definition. It is the definition we accept in light of the evidence we've integrated. I am not challenged for evidence, I have just come to a different conclusion than you. And I'm honestly not sure what you mean by the term "superstitious evolution religions'. And I'm not sure what religion has to do with an evolutionary debate, but since you brought it there, my 'religion' (i.e. my comfort system) is an appreciation for all that remains unknown.



Mutations are causal mechanisms of allellic variability. If you understand translation and transcription (no I am not spewing terms, an understanding of these mechanisms is essential for informed evolutionary discussions), you would understand how allelic variability results in protein diversity. Its really quite a beautiful phenomenon.

There are lots of examples I could provide, but I think the difference between our perspectives lies in our different definitions of logic, and I honestly dont feel like exploring this with you since you reply so defensively.



Why do you keep comming back to the fossils? First, as many here have pointed out there are a lot of transistional fossils. Second, the fossil record is only one way of documenting the gradual changes. And if you had actually considered my response, instead of reacting defensively to it, you would have made the connections.


Correct, there are thousands.



You believe in intelligent design, cool. I believe that evolution occurs. Perform a google scholar search on any of these terms and you will find evidence counter to your arguments. Take it or leave it.



I, and countless others have provided rigorous empirical evidence. What you do with it is your choice.

Last Edited by Parabola on 12/09/2012 05:34 PM

Typical shills to attack people like that. His imprisonment has nothing to do with his seminars. LISTEN to what he says instead of sticking your head in the sand with your pre-conceived notions.

I've seen the video before by the way, along with every seminar and a few college courses. I agree with Hovind on most points but to be honest he's inaccurate in some cases. His seminars are like 6 - 8 years old or something so it's understandable. I love his debates with evolutionists. Hovind crush them all!
I also purchased a lot of interesting books from his website DrDino.com. They're great and interesting!

Last Edited by Marlo Stanfield on 12/09/2012 05:32 PM

It is still a virus and always will be. Same with the dog, horse, frog, bear, ect ect.

Virus mutations are not evolution

[link to creation.com]

The guy actually makes MANY valid points. Only about 30min in though.


PIN THIS SHIT!

42:00 in. Still very interesting.

1 hr in. Still pretty compelling.


Double bump!

ok, explain it smart ass? How DO they mutate and adapt?

You have just replaced the word 'god' in your vocabulary with the word 'evolution', evolution being a euphemism for your atheism.

God doesn't mutate viruses, 'no god' does.

we will just call your god, nogod.

I am FAR from atheist. If you read the actual words written in Genesis they follow the same road map offered in the process of "evolution". Also for further information read the thread. I gave my perspective and made it legible enough for the intellectually impaired folks just like yourself.

Try this one.

It has more to do with electric than gravity. Golden ratio. and So on.

[link to www.thunderbolts.info]

I understand transcription and translation just fine, though I'm beginning to doubt that you do. And you have yet to make a point. You're still yammering about variations. Yes, we get it. Mutations happen. Entire Genome Duplication events happen. Lets move on.

Show me an example of random mutations producing genes for a single novel protein.




No, our difference lies in the fact that I'm right and you're wrong. Otherwise you'd provide an example.

Maybe you should be reconsidering the superstitious idea of a culled genetic accident's power to build and fill every ecological niche on earth with the most brilliantly designed structures imaginable.

Or stick with your religion, whatever..

An Evo with nothing to say, what a shock.

A stupid fuck who sucks his pastors cock...what a shock.

Evolution, adaptation and mutation are not the answers.

Now, manipulation is an entirely different story and is far more plausible.

Yes, it is something that according to ancient manuscripts actually occurred.

There's that defensive 'logic' again coupled with evident oversimplifications and misunderstandings (bolded pts). And as I said before, I'm not interested in having this discussion with you. Peace!

Nonsense. You come in here like most other arrogant Evos, telling skeptics that they just don't understand Evolution because they're ignorant.

I call you on your BS, and you run away, because you can not refute my arguments.

No one ever claimed a fish randomly turned into a bird anyway.

And if you want to see any genetic mutations that result in changes that are not so fit...just look at Downs Syndrome or any type of birth defect. Or animals being born with an extra head or leg.

It's a good question. But don't expect to ever get a good answer.

Think about it, for every beneficial mutation becoming fixated in the population and progressing towards a new body plan, you had the rest of that population diverging into another evolutionary direction.

Where are all the fossils of dead-end designs that didn't work out? How about a failed reproductive system that started out good but led to major detriments?

There is nothing like that. All we find are the same perfect designs. Extinctions always being due to some catastrophic event. Random Mutation and SuperNatural Selection somehow knew the right avenues to take every time.

yep this was precisely the point :) where are all those fossils of dead end designs?
you know what is funny? i started from 10 years old with chemistry, trying to understand how the universe works, and i invested almost 20 years in perfecting the rational mind.

and it is so funny/sad to see people parading as rational and just parroting 'truths' obtained via authority figures and blindly accepted.

if they were capable of using simple logic without being emotionally attached to 'truths' they already believe (in a religious/dogmatic way),

they would see for example the implication of the concept of random mutations, and with basic math they would see that out of 1 billion possibilities of functional body mutations only very few would be fit in the way all our evolutionary organisms are fit.

and this leads to practically zero probability of stumbling in a random way exactly upon those changes.

and the only logical conclusion is that the evolutionary process is teleologic, it has a purpose, it is driven.
the human being is a mirror of how the universe works, we are a combination of purposes that aspire us towards the future and of inertia/needs that keep us in the past.

I don't want to burst your bubble, but most of the things he has stated have been either:
A. Proven to be false
B. Was already known to be false
c: half-truths

How so?

I have 100 reasons why Stupid is Evolution.

But...that's exactly what IS seen!

Let me know if you actually intend to come back to the thread, and I'll dig up names and representative fossils of that progression.

Actually, you really need to look no further than the Okapi, which is an almost unchanged relic of a Miocene ancestor.

Nope. It is easy to propose alternates to universal gravitation. For instance; Intelligent Falling. Let us propose that googillians of invisible tiny angels are at work racing to every individual object on Earth, and dragging it downwards with all the power of their tiny undetectable wings.

Prove that isn't so. You can't.

Less facetiously, we don't entirely understand gravity. The current theory revolves around the Higgs Field, but the Higgs itself is only a couple sigmas in to being reliably detected. There is PLENTY of margin for error in our current understanding of the nature of mass and gravitational attraction.

There is also margin of error in every other scientific field. We may be wrong about the photometric effect, we may be wrong about the nature of pressure in a gas. What we have, in all cases, is a statistical likelihood. And evolutionary biology is no different.

Perhaps the idea of common descent is a little less demonstrated and a little less tested than the wave/particle nature of light. But even if you were to argue that, it is a far, far, far, far, far way from that to stating that we are blindly guessing about the former.





There are major gaps in your reading.

There are elements of development we are less sure about. They are not grouped in any consistent way. They don't cluster in some convenient point of development or at some convenient era.

And most of your examples are wrong. We've charted the formation of the mammal foot all the way from the first limb buds. We've charted the formation of the notochord and the first spine. We've charted the evolution of the mammalian heart. I just last month read yet another paper on the evolution of the feather.

It sounds very much like the last thing you read was somewhere around the Second Edition of "On The Origins of Species." I trust you will believe me that evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, and so forth have been gainfully employed in the century since!




Err, no.

The phytogenetic tree is identical to every other cladistic, from paleontological to mutation frequencies in non-coding parts of the gene.

There is no animal of higher organization than a single-cell for which a shrug of "must be convergent evolution" is used to excuse physiological replication.

Let's just take fliers as a large-scale convergency. There are some five different groups of flying animals either alive today or well-represented in the fossil record. Each is unique. The closest you will get between, say, bat and bird is a certain superficial similarity. The actual structures are physiologically distinct and show origin along different paths.

Same for eyes, of which there are multiple examples each of which is in fact unique to its line of descent.

If you have a specific counter-example, I'd be entertained to hear it.





I'm sorry, but that is a clear falsehood. That is exactly what we observe. Speciation events have been observed in the laboratory. Major changes of diet and form have been observed in the laboratory. Populations are constantly changing, enough that we've been able to construct fairly accurate clocks.






Now this is interesting. After showing a gross ignorance of current science, you then come up with startlingly specific examples to support your claims.

You obviously didn't find these on your own. The rest of your post demonstrates you probably do not even UNDERSTAND the references you have made.

And, yes, there certainly are simple movements around the built-in plasticity of an organism.

But you have two huge barriers to claiming that in reference to the nylonerase examples. First is that the environment did not include nylon for a good 2 billion years. Even if you use a more ludicrous time-table, I think you would be forced to agree that there was no nylon-6 in the Garden of Eden.

The other, even more interesting, barrier is that THERE IS NO ALLELE FOR THIS IN FLAVOBACTIN. None. Period. It isn't in the intron, it isn't in the extron. No plasmid carries it. No other bacteria is close at hand to borrow it from (bacteria are genetically promiscuous that way). The code for that protein does not exist and to say that it is already in the genetics is a gross mischaracterization; similar to saying that, since my post here uses the 26 letters of the English language same as Shakespeare does, my post already includes Act II, scene 3 of "Hamlet, Prince of Denmark" (first folio edition).