proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Justatruthseeker]

Uh, without even seeing it? What?

You failed to see your own contradiction, evidenced by your next response.

This is true. Mind informing some of your creationist peers about that? They don't like to be corrected by evolution supporters such as myself, but they might be more open to changing their minds when discussing the matter with another creationist.

No this is false, because as stated above you failed to see your own contradiction. You want mutation to be random, but evolution which proceeds by those random mutations to not be random. You fail to see the very contradiction in your own belief.

I wouldn't say that the ecological and geological changes in the environment are random, given that the movement of tectonic plates is quite predicable and environmental changes always have a noticeable preceding cause that in and of itself is not random.

That tectonic plates move and how much they move is a random event. What set those plates in motion was random to begin with. That you might be able to kinda, sorta, maybe predict them is easily falsifiable as not a single earthquake has been predicted with precision. That ground sensors may start registering and they then predict a major quake is not the same as being able to predict. That we can halfway predict the weather based upon past experiences and how the storm is moving and building does not mean the weather is not random.

I wasn't claiming that evolution was random; I was referencing people that do at the start of my post. However, I can understand the problem here. You think that since evolution isn't random that this in and of itself explains away any genetic similarity between different species/genus. There are problems with that line of thought, one being the fact that DNA codons are highly redundant. In fact, out of 20 amino acids, only 2 of them are only signaled by 1 codon alone. This means that, if a given amino acid added to a protein is favorable from an evolution standpoint, as many as 4 different variations will be equally selected for. This means that, even if every modern protein was "as good as it can possibly get", there's no reason for the gene sequences to match up in the patterns we see. Why, say, have every great ape produce an mRNA with the sequence
AUG AUC CCC UGU UCA AAA when AUG AUU CCG UGC UCU AAG would produce the exact same sequence of amino acids?

not at all, evolution doesnt exist, so in reality it is neither random nor non-random. I objected to your belief that evolution is not random, yet it proceeds by purely random occurrences.

What you percieve as inherited traits are merely similarities due to the fact that the same building blocks were used to create all life. Just as all molecules on the subatomic level are similar due to the fact that they are made from the same exact protons, neutrons and electrons.

Only, to some extent, by your reasoning. That is, I am still a little uncertain as to why you think evolution not being random would entirely explain the genetic similarity between various organisms.

I never said evolution was random, you said it was not random. I say there is no such thing as evolution.

A bold claim, good sir; I'd think that if there are variations in atomic particles that they would be so minor is to be practically impossible to measure.

And yet all atomic particles are made from the exact same protons, nuetrons and electrons. It is merely their configuration and number which differentiates those atomic particles. And yet besides your claim it is quite easy for us to differentiate between the molecules based upon merely their electron and proton counts.

-_- this has nothing to do with evolution in any direct sense.

This has everything to do with evolution in every single sense. After all, did not all life start from those same building blocks? And then proceed using those same building blocks?

The only difference is I know all life came from dust and that there was nothing random to it. I expect such similarities being the same material makes up everything in existence.

 

[rjs330]

What would change your mind?

Having actual observation and testing that shows something changing into something it isn't already.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, what Justatruthseeker said is correct; evolution on the whole is not random, though mutation, which influences evolution, is. To clarify further, what mutations you end up with that are unique unto yourself are random, but whether or not they improve or impair your ability to survive and reproduce is not random. A mutation that causes darker skin is an advantage in sunny environments and a disadvantage in environments that experience long periods of darkness, due to how our bodies generate vitamin D from light exposure (as well as how too much light exposure can damage the cells in our skin). Thus, trends in human skin tones are not random, even though the mutations that gave rise to the variation are.

Of course, Justa disagrees with me entirely on the validity of evolution, so he would disagree with this being the reason for variation in skin tones, but that will not discourage me from defending him when he gets something right.

You totally misunderstand what I said. It is the poster that I responded to that claimed evolution was not random, I simply pointed out the error in that belief. If something proceeds by random events, then it itself is random.

No, skin tones are the result of dominant and recessive genes. As are eyes colors, hair colors..... But when you get something right, I'll defend you. And dont defend me for something I clearly never said, you simply confused my post. The poster said evolution was not random. I pointed out the error in the belief than random events being the cause, mean non randomness.....

 

[joshua 1 9]

LOL. What is the scientific theory of creation?

Theistic Evolution. Although people like Francis Collins like to coin his own terms so that his beliefs are not associated with people he does not agree with.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Neat.


I'm not sure what conclusions in this you take issue with, since this is just a piece that goes over the history of how Syrian hamsters became common pets... from National Geographic, which is not a scientific journal, and no citations from any primary sources.

However, I did find it interesting that it mentioned something I already did to you; hamsters come in a variety of colors. It even suggests that there is more color variety in these hamsters now than there was in the wild population when they were discovered.

Of course, if you breed a green haired (fictional - but we are discussing evolution) with a blue haired hamster, you will get a blue-green haired hamster. If you then breed one of those with a red haired hamster we go to yellowish and orangish hair

Not that I would expect a supporter of evolution to understand what breeding is capable of, since they cant see dogs and their variation from two to begin with.....

 

[Speedwell]

...something it isn't already.

You need to be more specific.

 

[rjs330]

Awesome. Another round of creationist dishonesty / bearing false witness.

1. comparative embryology gives many insights into development
2. fossils are fully formed, because there's no such thing as a crockoduck
3. it's not just about mere similarity, it's about the pattern of similarity

4. it's evidence of common ancestry

Don't be silly and accusatory. Embryology is not evidence of a common ancestor. Please tell me how. I don't see it.

Yes there is no such thing as a crockoduck. But there is such a thing as a duck and a crocodile. Never the twin did meet. All fossils show are fully formed creatures appearing as groups and in large amounts. There is no evidence of something actually evolving into something else. And we certainly have no fossil evidence of the common ancestor and it's evolutionary process.
And patterns of similarities are only patterns of similarities and not actual evidence of common ancestry unless you assume it does.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Similarities is precisely what we expect to see in common design if it is accurate, which it is. A designer uses common materials to create and sustain life in order for it to flourish and adapt.

Yah they cant comprehend that everything was made from the same dust, even if their own creation story (I mean random event) had to use just that very same thing.......

 

[rjs330]

You need to be more specific.

I think you know what I mean. A bird evolving a different wing structure is still a bird. I am talking about a bird turning into something that's not a bird.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If fruit flies did not remain fruit flies that would falsify the theory of evolution. It is readily apparent that you do not know what the theory predicts. If the theory did not work then it would be changed. That is how science works and what has happened. If it didn't the constant testing and real world application of evolutionary theory would show us where there were issues.




How about we stick to your lack of understanding of a single theory at a time.

And yet bacteria became fish and they became non-fish and something, we dont know what, became both human and ape. I'd suggest you dont even know your own theory.

So if fruit flies remaining fruit flies proves evolution, then how did bacteria become something other than bacteria leading up to man? Are you saying we are bacteria? Or fish?

 

[Speedwell]

I think you know what I mean. A bird evolving a different wing structure is still a bird. I am talking about a bird turning into something that's not a bird.

We're still not communicating. What's a "bird?" From my standpoint, a "bird" is any creature of the class Aves. Any of its descendants will also be members of that class no matter how un "bird" like they may become through evolution.

But I suspect that is not quite what you mean; perhaps you are thinking more of changes in morphology. A change of wing structure is evidently not too much for you to accept. What about the original change of a terrestrial forelimb into a wing?

 

[HiEv]

not realy. in both cases they are physically identical. so the process of how they were created doesnt matter. they are both still identical. so you are basically claiming that an object that is identical to a robot (a robot that evolved by a naturall process) isnt a robot. its illogical.

No, I'm saying that an object which is organic is, by definition, not a robot. The process of how it was created is irrelevant.

Your argument is dependent upon using a word in a way contrary to what is normally meant by it, thus your argument itself is faulty.

I honestly don't know how to explain this to you any more clearly, since this has been my point to you from the beginning.

Second of all, you don't merely get to assume design via. a hasty generalization. Even if motors which we know were made by humans, were made by humans, that does not mean that we get to assume that all motors are the product of humans.

it's like saying that if some cars are evidence for design, we cant conclude that any car is evidence for design. but we actually can conclude design when we see a car from any kind.

No, it's not. There is a big difference between the word "any" and "all". I'm not saying that you can't conclude that any are designed, I'm saying that you can't conclude that all are designed.

There's a very important difference between "any" and "all", and your whole argument is based on ignoring that difference.

There are man-made seashells made for decorative reasons. However, based on the fact that some seashells are man-made, one cannot reach the conclusion that all seashells are man-made. This isn't suggesting that we can't show "any" are man-made, since we obviously have evidence that some are, but one cannot jump from "some X are Y" to "therefore all X are Y".

And that's precisely the logical error you keep making, over, and over, and over.

very simple. take a look at this compass:

(image from :Compass – Android Apps on Google Play)

in general it's very similar to a watch. but there is no stepwise from this compass to a watch.

No duh. Nobody is making the argument that compasses evolved into watches.

This is not a good analogy, because they are neither related nor have a possible method of natural evolution from one to the other.

for instance: we need to add a motion system to the springs to make them move and also a battery. the same with the ttss and flagellum comparison. so no, we cant change one system to anothher by small steps.

(facepalm)

So your argument is because a compass can't be turned into a clock in steps, the Type III Secretion System (T3SS) of the needle design can't evolve into the Type III Secretion System of the bacterial flagellum!?!?

First of all:

Second of all, mechanical devices, which are not produced through natural selection, don't need to change by small steps. I suppose one could make the change by small steps, you've utterly failed to prove that you can't, but it isn't necessary. All you're really saying is that they don't, you haven't proved it's impossible. However, in evolution such changes are necessary, and when you take a look at the relevant genes and the structures they produce, and the genes and structures of related species, we always find evidence that supports the idea that they were indeed produced through a stepwise evolution.

Finally, how did you conclude that it's impossible for one type of T3SS to evolve into another type of T3SS via small steps? Is it purely through inappropriate analogy? The people who actually understand evolution, genetics, and molecular biology disagree with you, so I'd love to know how you determined that they're all wrong. Especially considering how similar the two T3SSs are.

Honestly, your argument comes down to, "I don't think it could happen, therefore God." Argument from personal incredulity not a valid argument.

right. i just showed that no one can detect bad design. and therefore no one can claim for a bad design. very simple.

You keep insisting that you showed that "no one" can detect bad design, but all you've actually shown is one single case where some people said that something was bad design for several reasons, and one of the details turned out to be wrong, but the other details were still right. Blind spots exist because of the layout of the retina. This fact will never turn out to be untrue, nor can having gaps in your vision be an advantage.

You cannot extrapolate from one partial example, that wasn't even completely wrong, to somehow rule it out from anyone ever being able being able to detect bad design.

"Some" and "all" are two very different things.

right. since you already know the function of a spare tire. but if you didnt know what the function of a spare tire is, you can conclude a bad design too. this is the problem with this argument.

I'm sorry, it doesn't matter how you rearrange it or what items you name, your argument is basically, "You could be mistaken sometimes, therefore you can never ever, ever, ever show that you're right sometimes." By that argument, if I've shown that sometimes you make bad arguments, I should therefore conclude that you can never make good arguments? Because that's basically the same "logic" you're arguing here.

You keep trying to extrapolate from "some" to "all", and you can't just do that. And yet, that's what you keep trying to do. I'm beginning to honestly wonder if you pull a yellow M&M out of a bag, and then are utterly agog in disbelief when the next one isn't also yellow.

So, please, next time, don't argue merely by repeating these same arguments over and over, utterly ignoring my points in the process. You have to explain how you get from "some" to "all", because I don't see how you can possibly do that.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I do not believe in the random mutation theory. A lot of the theory has nothing to do with mutations, the information was there from the beginning. For example I do not consider frame shift to be a mutation but it is included in the mutation theory.

A good example are the hamsters you buy in the pet stores. Because of inbreeding they tend to all be the same color but in the wild they were many different colors like most all species.

I dont believe in evolution at all. I was commenting on the contradiction that evolution was claimed to not be random, yet proceeded because of random mutations.

Sorry, seems everyone missed the entire point of my post, by the fact that even the evolutionists defended the misinterpretation. showing they are confused as to what randomness is.

You cant talk to them about interbreeding, it goes right over their head and they cant see it. Its like those finches that are interbreeding so rapidly they are becoming one type, but all they can talk about is natural selection. The fact that they are humping like bunny rabbits right in front of their noses cant be seen by them. The same with dogs. And they then refuse to accept what is happening right in front of their eyes and apply that to the fossil record. They simply could not observe what creature mated with what creature from bones. Not surprising, since birds are interbreeding right in front of their eyes and they cant see that either as the cause of those changes....

 

[PsychoSarah]

Of course, if you breed a green haired (fictional - but we are discussing evolution) with a blue haired hamster, you will get a blue-green haired hamster.

Depends on the genetics of these hamster colors. What you are talking about sounds like incomplete dominance, which is fairly common in color genetics.

If you then breed one of those with a red haired hamster we go to yellowish and orangish hair

Not that I would expect a supporter of evolution to understand what breeding is capable of, since they cant see dogs and their variation from two to begin with.....

I sincerely hope that you don't think all traits are inherited as incomplete dominance. Human eye color is a good example of inherited color that doesn't always fit incomplete dominance. For example, let's say a child's father is homozygous for brown eyes (represented as BB), and their mother is heterozygous for brown eyes and carries a blue eye allele (represented as Bb). That kid has brown eyes, regardless as to whether or not they inherited that blue eye allele from their mom, because the brown eye gene is dominant. That is, in the presence of both alleles, the brown eye allele will be expressed and the blue eye one won't. Their mom has brown eyes, not an intermediate between brown and blue.

Just for you, I actually looked up recently registered dog breeds. One of the most recent ones is the Alaskan Klee Ki, which resembles a miniature husky. This was the result of a breeding project between 1970 and 1988, a mere 18 years to produce a new dog breed, which was recognized by the UKC since 1997. So, feel free to count that as "extra time", that's still a new dog breed within 27 years. And I am fairly sure you've been alive from start to finish for that.

This is why I take such issue with you bringing up dogs so much. This is why I cannot stand you claiming that we don't produce new dog breeds ever. It can be done easily in a human lifetime. Plus, the Triops that will be my test subjects breed a lot faster than dogs do. 18 years is less than 30 generations of responsible dog breeding. The Triops will experience more than 30 generations within 2 years.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Don't be silly and accusatory.

I get to be "accusatory" because all this stuff has been explained to you time and again, yet you repeat the same stuff that so many people have already corrected you on.

Yes there is no such thing as a crockoduck. But there is such a thing as a duck and a crocodile. Never the twin did meet. All fossils show are fully formed creatures appearing as groups and in large amounts.

Exactly as evolution expects. You are pretending evolution would expect crockoducks. It wouldn't.

There is no evidence of something actually evolving into something else.

Except the logical progression of the fossil record, with no exceptions, and just about everything we know and understand about genetics, like phylogenetic trees etc.

And we certainly have no fossil evidence of the common ancestor and it's evolutionary process.
And patterns of similarities are only patterns of similarities and not actual evidence of common ancestry unless you assume it does.

Evolution predicts one very specific pattern.
And it is a pattern that would NOT result from distinct "creation" events (unless extra special care is given to have that pattern emerge on purpose).

And it is exactly that pattern that we find in living things.
Any other pattern would have falsified evolution.

ps: that pattern is the nested hierarchy, but you know that off course, as that too, has been explained to you countless times.

 

[Ophiolite]

Blind spots exist because of the layout of the retina. This fact will never turn out to be untrue, nor can having gaps in your vision be an advantage.

I ran into an Egyptian lawyer on a roundabout in Heliopolis who can attest to this fact.

 

[rjs330]

We're still not communicating. What's a "bird?" From my standpoint, a "bird" is any creature of the class Aves. Any of its descendants will also be members of that class no matter how un "bird" like they may become through evolution.

But I suspect that is not quite what you mean; perhaps you are thinking more of changes in morphology. A change of wing structure is evidently not too much for you to accept. What about the original change of a terrestrial forelimb into a wing?

Do we have a creature that we can show evolved a forelimb into a feathered wing?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yah they cant comprehend that everything was made from the same dust, even if their own creation story (I mean random event) had to use just that very same thing.......

More dishonesty concerning what this pattern is and means.
hint: it has nothing to do with the "base materials", and everything with what would inevitably emerge from an evolutionary system with a common root.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How could you not consider a frame shift a mutation? It's describing a specific type of change to DNA as a result of copying errors that occur during replication, which is by definition what a mutation is.

Or is this just a case of rewriting the dictionary again?

Why not? You all dont sem to mind rewriting the dictionary wen those finches are mating right in front of their noses and refuse to accept the scientific definition.....

But you missed the point. We both agree it is a copy the point missed is of "what already existed" in the genome.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think you know what I mean. A bird evolving a different wing structure is still a bird. I am talking about a bird turning into something that's not a bird.

That would falsify evolution.