Unrealized Genomes as the Ultimate Falsification of the Theory of Evolution

Ophiolite said:

And xinghua's consistently wrong posts demonstrate that it doesn't happen to individuals. (Or at least not to some of them.)

Click to expand...

It doesn’t happen to any of them, individuals or populations. That’s why every individual fossil and every population of fossils of any creature remain the same from the oldest fossil found for that creature until it goes extinct.......

But don’t you just love how an individual in their theory gets a random mutation and passes that mutation to the next generation, but that individual doesn’t evolve

VirOptimus said:

Thats not how evolution works.

Click to expand...

We know, it doesn’t work at all....

Justatruthseeker said:

Let me repeat.... not one for any creature on any single tree where any claimed split is said to have occurred.

Why do you feel it necessary to try to whittle it down to only hominin?????? As if that was ever what I said or implied????

Click to expand...

It wasn't necessary, but that was the specific example used in the discussion (see your #122).

Having said that, if you acknowledge that we haven't and probably won't find fossils of every species, subspecies and genus, there will inevitably be missing common ancestors - but since every speciation event occurs in what then becomes a common ancestor, plenty of fossils are likely to be examples of a common ancestor (have a guess at the likely %). The difficulty is in distinguishing those that speciated from those that didn't (i.e. went extinct), given the paucity of fossil evidence.

Justatruthseeker said:

But don’t you just love how an individual in their theory gets a random mutation and passes that mutation to the next generation, but that individual doesn’t evolve

Click to expand...

Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear. The depth of your ignorance of evolutionary theory is greater than I had imagined.

Mutations that are passed to the next generation are those that occur in the germ cells - sperm, or ova. Those mutations can have no effect on the individual who carries them.
Mutations that occur in the somatic cells (the rest of the cells in the body) can effect the individual, but cannot be passed on to the next generation.

Given that you did not know, or properly understand this, what is your justification for making assertions regarding evolution? It's equivalent to me refuting Christianity by questioning why Jesus wasn't on the Ark.

Justatruthseeker said:

Oh please, it is the individual that in your theory gets a mutation and then passes his genes onto the next generation which eventually overtake the less fit and become the population..... it is the individual that evolved. It simply passed its genome to the next generation.....

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you don't get to redefine what the words mean. Biological evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

Or is this the part where you claim hundreds of thousands to millions magically get the same random mutation?

Click to expand...

That would be silly.

Justatruthseeker said:

We know, it doesn’t work at all....

Click to expand...

Creationist Todd Wood disagrees with you. But of course he also has the advantage of being a professional biologist as opposed to merely an amateur agitator.

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is noconspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

Click to expand...

The truth about evolution

Justatruthseeker said:

It doesn’t happen to any of them, individuals or populations.

Click to expand...

Well that's just silly. I mean, even your average creationist accepts some level of evolution. Although I guess you're so hell bent on being contrarian, next you'll be arguing the sky is green and water isn't wet.

Justatruthseeker said:

Oh stop with the PR already.

My request is perfectly reasonable. You have animals you claim came after, animals you claim came before, but NEVER any of the ones you claim split. Not one..... Sure I understand we might miss a few hundred thousand, just as we don’t have every T-Rex fossil in existence. But you can’t show a single one.

You got nothing but claims forms are related by “missing common ancestors”.

Your best claimed evidence was “imagined” to have flippers and a fluke. Instead legs and feet were later found. But facts didn’t get in the way of theory in the least. Didn’t even skip a beat.... regardless that it was believed to have had flippers and a fluke due to its claimed place in the lineup not feet and a tail.... but don’t let what they imagined it to be get in the way of what it really is..... not even close to what they thought it was.....


I know, you prefer the fantasy of theory to facts, much easier to manipulate.....

Click to expand...

This post from just 2 days ago.

Why do you consider it acceptable to continue being dishonest?

Contradiction said:

You simply ignore the reality and refuse to see the truth that the theory of evolution is the most nonsensical idea in the history of human thought.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but this statement is bordering on the insane.

The Theory of Evolution explains over a century's worth of scientific observation.

The fossil record (transitional fossils, gradual change over time etc)
Biogeography (ring species, adaptive radiations etc)
Comparative Anatomy (homologous structures, atavisms, embryology) etc
Molecular biology (Phylogenetic relationships etc)
Direct observation (Natural selection, Speciation, drug resistance, Nylon eating bacteria etc etc)


None of these things are "pie-in-the-sky" imaginings, they are observations that need explaining and the TOE explains them perfectly. It even has practical applications in various industries.

What is "nonsensical" is that you think that you can make all this go away with some amateur thought experiment that in the words of a professional geneticist....

"makes an unreasonable assumption, one that does not model known evolutionary processes".

Contradiction said:

You simply ignore the reality and refuse to see the truth

Click to expand...

I love this phrase when uttered by the ill-educated. The thought that thousands, perhaps millions, of trained scientists are all deliberately ignoring reality and flat out refusing to see the truth while an internet shamateur claims to debunk one of the most well-supported scientific theories using made up numbers and religious zeal, is preposterous.

In all honesty, which do you think is ignoring reality and claiming to see The Truth(tm)? After all, this is really about The Truth(tm) and not actual truth, isn't it?

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

It wasn't necessary, but that was the specific example used in the discussion (see your #122).

Click to expand...

Another false claim.....

Perhaps you should go back and reread that post and you will see it was simply a reply to the person that thought presenting a fossil of Lucy would suffice as a "common ancestor" that split. And that they could get away with intentionally misrepresenting my stance....

So when asking for any common ancestor that split, which includes humans, they couldn't even be honest with themselves about where Lucy lies on the claimed line. Looooong after the claimed split.... Instead had to deliberately try to change the goalposts of what was asked for...

Having said that, if you acknowledge that we haven't and probably won't find fossils of every species, subspecies and genus, there will inevitably be missing common ancestors - but since every speciation event occurs in what then becomes a common ancestor, plenty of fossils are likely to be examples of a common ancestor (have a guess at the likely %). The difficulty is in distinguishing those that speciated from those that didn't (i.e. went extinct), given the paucity of fossil evidence.

Click to expand...

I didn't ask for many. I asked for ONE SINGLE ONE where this claimed split is said to occur..... which you have still failed to supply....

You got no problem claiming Lucy is an ancestor, certainly you won't have any problem claiming something else is a common ancestor. After all, you have no problem claiming what things are after the split, no problems claiming what things are before the split...... You do this for every creature in existence.... Yet when it comes to the period where the ancestor would have lived..... nothing.....

I sense avoidance of your problem by trying to divert it to irrelevant PR...

Justatruthseeker said:

divert it to irrelevant PR...

Click to expand...

He said, whilst posting irrelevant, off-topic PR.

Contradiction said:

It is gross morphology what occupies niches in nature and every instance of scientific observations shows that there are no even a thousand, let alone a million or a trillion of distinct ways to occupy a particular niche. That is why my assumption is way too generous to the theory of evolution. You simply ignore the reality and refuse to see the truth that the theory of evolution is the most nonsensical idea in the history of human thought.

Click to expand...

Funny how it is that "gross morphology" the changing of a birds beak by 1 cm, that they use to classify, even if they are mating right in front of their eyes. Then we got to listen to rants about how gross morphology isn't important....

Even if the gross morphology is the direct result of the gene expression....

It is the "gross morphology" in which all fossils forms are classified, and that morphology changes not at all for the entire existence of any creature until it goes extinct. In fact they confused those changes in "gross morphology" from baby to adult as separate species..... The only connection they have between forms is those claimed "missing common ancestors", imagination and wishfull thinking. Along with incorrect classifications.....

Evolution is indeed one of the most nonsensical ideas in the thought process of human history. Worse than Flat Earth, at least they try to base their belief upon what they see....

Justatruthseeker said:

Perhaps you should go back and reread that post and you will see it was simply a reply to the person that thought presenting a fossil of Lucy would suffice as a "common ancestor" that split. And that they could get away with intentionally misrepresenting my stance....

So when asking for any common ancestor that split, which includes humans, they couldn't even be honest with themselves about where Lucy lies on the claimed line. Looooong after the claimed split.... Instead had to deliberately try to change the goalposts of what was asked for...

Click to expand...

You are actually correct here. Obviously Lucy is not a common ancestor of chimps and humans, I mistakenly posted in haste and now retract the example.

Is that honest enough?

Jimmy D said:

He said, whilst posting irrelevant, off-topic PR.

Click to expand...

Says the person that presents a fossil long down the line past that claimed split while being asked for a single common ancestor that split.... Not only off-topic, but then just now presents another off-topic rant.... All because his missing common ancestors are all imaginary and he can't provide one single one for one single creature for any evolutionary tree where any claimed split happened.

Your FAITH is strong....

Jimmy D said:

You are actually correct here. Obviously Lucy is not a common ancestor of chimps and humans, I mistakenly posted in haste and now retract the example.

Is that honest enough?

Click to expand...

It's a start, now you can also concede that there exists none for any creature. That its all based upon imagination....

Contradiction said:

You simply ignore the reality and refuse to see the truth that the theory of evolution is the most nonsensical idea in the history of human thought.

Click to expand...

How do you account for the fact that the theory of evolution is not only foundational to modern biology, it's also an applied science (including common ancestry) with real-world application?

Yet we never see this from biological industries where they have arguably the most vested interest in the best understanding of biology possible.

The only people claiming evolution is wrong are creationists and they are only doing so to protect their religious beliefs that they have set up to be contradicted by scientific findings. If anything it speaks to how fragile and nonsensical creationism is.

Ophiolite said:

Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear. The depth of your ignorance of evolutionary theory is greater than I had imagined.

Mutations that are passed to the next generation are those that occur in the germ cells - sperm, or ova. Those mutations can have no effect on the individual who carries them.
Mutations that occur in the somatic cells (the rest of the cells in the body) can effect the individual, but cannot be passed on to the next generation.

Given that you did not know, or properly understand this, what is your justification for making assertions regarding evolution? It's equivalent to me refuting Christianity by questioning why Jesus wasn't on the Ark.

Click to expand...

Are you claiming that my son, who receives the mutation is not an individual? He is certainly NOT the population until all his offspring eventually supersede all the rest...

Your distractions to avoid do you no good. It is always the individual that would evolve, not the population. In fact the population would need to be replaced by the start of a single mutation in the individual offspring.... Even if more than one offspring is born, the passing of the mutation is not guaranteed to all offspring....

One individual becomes two, two become 3, three become 4, etc, etc until they finally become the population.....

Don't try to bandy words with me, it is useless and your attempts to distract from the reality of what your own theory demands simply shows you either don't understand evolution, or don't really believe in it....

pitabread said:

How do you account for the fact that the theory of evolution is not only foundational to modern biology, it's also an applied science (including common ancestry) with real-world application?

Yet the only people who ever claim otherwise are creationists doing so to protect their particular religious beliefs. We never see this from biological industries where they have arguably the most vested interest in the best understanding of biology possible.

Click to expand...

What real world application?????

When did any virologist or biologist have to worry about a virus or bacteria changing into something other than a virus or bacteria? I expect that was going to be your claim to fame.....

When did anyone doing animal or plant husbandry have to worry about the cow or rose changing into something other than a cow or rose????

I'll ask again, what real world application?????