"100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID!"

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.

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.

Evolution, adaptation and mutation are not the answers.

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

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).

Show me a living trilobite.



Okay...maybe you didn't mean "successful organisms" but there again is where your error lies.

How does a species get into the fossil record? By dying in large numbers; large enough so one or two will be preserved, AND will be recovered by scientists. Those are pretty long odds. It is actually a surprise just how many hominid fossils we've managed to turn up, for instance.

So any mutation or series of mutations that led to an extremely sickly, poorly-breeding, or otherwise grossly unfit offshoot of a viable species would lead to...natural selection editing that experiment out before it got numerous enough to be part of the fossil record.

That said, there are plenty of examples of less-than-wonderful adaptations. Ones that were either neutral enough to be kept, or that were too tightly tied to necessary adaptations to allow them to be separated out and dropped.



Oh, and you mischaracterize extinction events. A meteorite doesn't come down and individually bonk each dinosaur on the head. Instead it changes the environment enough so some species thrive...and others do not.

Hello nomuse,here,have a Slug [link to blogs.ngm.com]

'Now University of South Florida biologist Sidney Pierce and colleagues report that the Atlantic-dwelling E. chlorotica filches enough plant genetics that it can churn out its own chlorophyll, the pigment that chloroplasts exhaust during photosynthesis. That means the green slug can use the sun to refuel without ever eating again.

Pierce says it’s an intriguing evolutionary shortcut: “Movement of genes between species can make big and rapid changes. Evolution doesn’t always need to wait for a mutation.” —Jennifer S. Holland' [link to blogs.ngm.com]

Now ain't that friggin' awesome!?

Yah. The evolutionary tree is cross-linked -- especially near the roots.

Bacteria are promiscuous. Many plants are able to share genetic material. We ourselves have benefited from ERVs.

Anti-Christian TARD.

You would probably enjoy this video. It shows how if certain existing animals had gone extinct long in the past, and their fossils were found, Evos would declare that they formed part of an evolutionary transition because of their overall similarity with small variations. It's a great example of how flawed that type of thinking can be.


[link to www.youtube.com]

Kent Hovind is just a con man, plain and simple.

He starts by telling truth's and little lies and then just keeps saying bigger lies, eventually the listener get brainwashed into accepting it all as truths.

Old trick used countless times before.

Pretty incredible that this Slug is actively 'stealing' Genetic Code for Chloroplasts from Algae without any symbiosis at all.

If a Slug can do that,well...wow.

Greetings:

Sigh .... Try "Interventionism" ... Rather Then "Evolution" ... Rather Then "Creationism" !!

Yes !! ... It Was US/WE ... Those That Are Not From/Of Terra/Earth ... Who Originally Seeded It ... Gave It Life On The Surface !!

It Was US/WE ... Who Like A Gardener ... Who Tilled The Soil ... Planted The "Crops" ... Weeded/Removed The Ones Which Didn't Fare Well/Adapt ... Planted New/Altered Ones !!

It Was US/WE ... That Did These Things !! ... And Of This ... Of Our Creations ... Our Genetic Adapations ... Of Species Taken From Other Worlds ... Changed For The Environments Of Terra/Earth ... We Did All These Things !! ... And Over "Time" ... The Species Took Hold ... They Themselves Adapted/Changed ... To Meet & Blend ... With Changing Plantary Conditions ... Of This Then ... Of Their Own Changing ... (A Factor Encoded In Their Genes) ... That You Refer To As "Evolution" !!

As To "Creationism" ... There Was No "God" ... No "Religious Fictional "Miracle" ... That Created/Seeded Life On Terra/Earth !! ... It Was Of US/WE ... Beings Not From Your World !! ... Beings Who Have The Knowledge Of Highly Advanced Sciences ... Of Ones That Understand The Processes Of Life !! ... Ones That Have Seeded ... That Have Brought Life To Many Planets ... Many Bodies In Space !! ... Many Worlds ... Many Galaxies ... Many Many Universes !!

Ones That Understand The Formation Of Worlds ... Of Planetary Systems ... & How To Go About Creating These !! ... & From These ... Multi Systems ... Each & To Each Other ... Unique & Different ... Yet All Part Of The Whole & Connected !!

It Is US/WE ... Who Are Your Makers ... Your Creator Beings ... Your "Creators" !! ... Not Some Invention/"Belief" That You Have Made ... To Make You Feel Comfortable ... Or To Passify Your Own Fears ... Or Comfort Your Lonelyness Of Being !!

Your Sciences & Scientists On Terra/Earth ... Are Yet Of An Infant & Infantile State ... Professing They Know ... They Understand ... The Meanings Of The Universes !! ... They Know Little To Nothing ... Of How Things Are ... Of How They Function !! ... They Do Not Even Understand Very Basic Thought ... Such As The Planet That They Reside On ... Is A Living & Thinking Entity !! ... A Living Organism !! ... It Is These "Scientists" On Terra/Earth ... You Go To For Your Answers !!

One Day Though ... You Will "Grow Up" ... Beyond That Of Your Temporary Terrestrial Shells/Bodies ... Beyond That Of Being "Human" ... Then You Will Learn ... As You Will Be With US/WE ... & You Will Be Taught ... Of How Things Actually Are !! ... Until Then ... !!

Farewell For Now !!

ST In BG

Stupid. For this comparison, the causal agent (design or nature) is irrelevant in both gravity and biodiversity. The point is that the observed phenomena of what we call Gravity can be measured, tested, and repeated.






When did I say our understanding of gravity was perfect? We could be way off. That's not the point. What we do know can be measured, tested, and repeated.





No, in physics we have measurable, testable, and repeatable phenomena. We have this in Biology as well, but certainly nothing that amounts to an evolutionary explanation for biodiversity.

And if you want to get down to the nuts and bolts, it will be revealed over and over again that Evolution is based on a mountain of historical claims and assumptions and not empirical evidence. When we get into the lab, we see no evidence of an evolutionary mechanism that explains the advent of body plans.





Perhaps? A little less? Uh no. It's night and day, nomuse, and you know it.

And now we're talking about Common Descent, which can be totally separated from the belief in Random Mutation+Natural Selection. (the central dogma of Evolution)

Some Design theories are based around Common Descent. Other evolutionists have proposed Natural Genetic Engineering to compensate for the obvious shortcomings of RM-NS to produce novel complexity.

Common Descent via Darwinian Evolution on the other hand? Total speculation.




You mean you've charted the foot all the way to the first foot, and the notochord to the formation of the first notochord. Feathers from scales is a joke. They simply appear on microraptors, and in birds like archeopteryx way before that. And there's strong evidence for fully formed bird wings in the Triassic, even. Evos don't have a clue.

Oh well, those lobe fins sure do look close to feet, don't they? Then you find the biomechanics of Icthyostega legs wouldn't even let it walk on land, and then advanced tetrapod trackways show up 20 million years before Tiktaalik.




Identical? Uh, no. Every biologist who has done extensive work on the tree readily admits to repeated incongruence. Sure, similar organisms tend to line up together,(equally predicted in design by common functionality) but we do not see nearly the kind of progression and consistency predicted by gradual darwinian evolution.

When there are unexpected divergences between genes, it is attributed to an unusually high level of conservation, or vise-versa, periods of 'rapid evolution', 'stasis', etc. if it comes down to totally unpredicted genes, HGT can explain it away. There is a model for every discrepancy. It is mostly unfalsifiable beyond what we would expect of similar phenotype possessing similar genotype.




Burrowing lizards. Despite virtually identical morphology, genetic differences tell us they must have evolved convergently.




No, it is not a falsehood, and you've provided no refutation.

"Speciation" is species becoming reproductively isolated from each other. That has nothing to do with the addition of novel complexity in an organism. It can just as easily be attributed to loss of function.

"Major changes of diet and form", I'm assuming you're referring to P. Sicula here, or some other similar example. I guarantee if it's described as "rapid evolution", what that really means is it is plasticity. What do you think?



yawn. you really are arrogant and condescending. par for the course for religious fanatics.




Uh yes. "Simple" as in Plasticity explains the totality of changes in the P. Sicula lizard, from enlarged structures to the development of cecal valves. Take them out of the environment and the changes revert on que. And that is peer-reviewed.

Conclusion: The changes are not based on any measure of random mutation or natural selection. They are direct responses to environment stimuli.

That empirical evidence won't change evos like you from prancing around proclaiming another miracle of evolution though, will it?

Ah, I get it.. Random Mutations and Natural Selection made Phenotypic Plasticity possible, right? That darn elusive RM-NS, just never wants to reveal itself in action.



What are you ranting about? Are you alluding to the idea that the bacteria knows it is digesting a man-made synthetic material? No, it is simply modifying an enzyme in response to a changed diet.




What are you ranting about? Flavobactin? Extron? Calm down. Nylonase isn't even a protein. It is a mere two amino-acid substitution in the enzyme Esterase, which already existed in wild-type Flavobacterium. Your claim that the "code for it does not exist" is complete nonsense. I'm guessing you're still under the misguided assumption that Nylonase was the result of a frameshift mutation. Check the literature.

Evolution if pure science! And we have theories to prove it. And we can alter them if we need to.

He lost my attention at "evangelist".

[link to www.youtube.com]

Stuart Newman - professor of cell biology and anatomy

One of the members of the Altenberg 16 meetings in which the theory of the driving mechanisms of Evolution is being radically changed.

Oh of course Evolution must still be true, only the whole theory of the mechanisms that cause it have to be altered.

Yes you've been called stupid and ignorant for decades for questioning the central darwinian method of biodiversity produced by Random Mutations + Natural Selection. And now mainstream science is finally having to admit this mechanism is inadequate. They're even bringing back forms of Saltation.

non-falsifiable theory.

Ok, ok, I believe you! Evolution is stupid (although I don’t know that chick)