Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

[OldWiseGuy]

There is nothing "mysterious" about mutate, survive, breed, repeat.

Whoa! We all accept mutation. It's evolution we have a problem with. If all evolution is is mutation then I'm on board with it, at least where humans are concerned.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It's called denial, a well known psychological condition.

Being in denial requires that that which is being denied is actually true.

 

[Speedwell]

If it looks, quacks, and walks like design it's probably design.

Design as function or design as purpose?

 

[Kylie]

If it looks, quacks, and walks like design it's probably design.

If it looks, quacks, and walks like evolution it's probably evolution.

And there are things in there that look like evolution, because we never see them in design.

 

[SteveB28]

Whoa! We all accept mutation. It's evolution we have a problem with. If all evolution is is mutation then I'm on board with it, at least where humans are concerned.

Then.....welcome aboard.

 

[rjs330]

But you don't understand evolution, do you?

Yes I do very well. I am educated by just about every evolution thread About what evolution is and is not, from ERVs to nested hierarchies. Its all nothing but a bunch of assumptions with no actual proof that evolution as stated happened. And yes I used the word proof. Until it can be shown by observation or testing that a single original creature could evolve into all there is then it's all,assumption.
The complexity of the universe and life itself is evidence of intelligent design. Evolution is evidence of foolish men.

 

[Moral Orel]

Until it can be shown by observation or testing that a single original creature could evolve into all there is then it's all,assumption.

Assumption isn't the right word. Let me ask you this, do you believe that there is a billion of something? Have you ever counted to a billion? If you haven't directly observed every single number from 1-1000000000, then how do you know that there are a billion numbers there? Are you just making an assumption that a billion exists?

 

[loveofourlord]

I guess you can blame Darwin, who called his publication "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection". But it gives the underlying reason for the 'survival of the fittest' - only they survive because natural selection winnows out the less fit.

Strictly speaking, even the fittest don't always survive, but it's the ones that do that are of interest

plus fittest in this context really means fits best to the area they inhabit.

 

[Kylie]

Yes I do very well. I am educated by just about every evolution thread About what evolution is and is not, from ERVs to nested hierarchies. Its all nothing but a bunch of assumptions with no actual proof that evolution as stated happened. And yes I used the word proof. Until it can be shown by observation or testing that a single original creature could evolve into all there is then it's all,assumption.
The complexity of the universe and life itself is evidence of intelligent design. Evolution is evidence of foolish men.

No, you do not understand evolution "very well" if your source of knowledge about it is a few threads on an internet discussion board.

Evolution has been witnessed many times. You say that speciation hasn't been observed, but you are wrong. Here is just one of several times: www.wsj.com/articles/scientists-observe-wasps-evolving-into-new-species-1446229404

I suspect that your opinion that you understand evolution well is merely an example of the Dunning Kruger effect.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Whoa! We all accept mutation. It's evolution we have a problem with.

Ok.

So you have no problem with the "mutate" part of "mutate, survive, breed, repeat".
Then what do you have a problem with, of the three remaining aspects? The survive, the breed or the repeat part?

If all evolution is is mutation then I'm on board with it, at least where humans are concerned.

Evolution is the accumulation of mutations over generations, filtered by natural selection.

 

[AV1611VET]

So you have no problem with the "mutate" part of "mutate, survive, breed, repeat".
Then what do you have a problem with, of the three remaining aspects? The survive, the breed or the repeat part?

Deep time.

 

[Kylie]

Deep time.

Because a completely literal interpretation of the Bible contradicts deep time, yes?

 

[AV1611VET]

Because a completely literal interpretation of the Bible contradicts deep time, yes?

Yes.

 

[Mobezom]

So your interpretation of the Bible means that you will outright dismiss an old Earth? Or do you have evidence? (The Bible is not a scientific textbook, so "in the beginning... and then Person A begat Person B, who begat Person C with Person D" doesn't work.)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ok.

So you have no problem with the "mutate" part of "mutate, survive, breed, repeat".
Then what do you have a problem with, of the three remaining aspects? The survive, the breed or the repeat part?



Evolution is the accumulation of mutations over generations, filtered by natural selection.

I'm on board with survival as well. But it is the mutants that don't survive. They are killed by gunfire, disease, accidents, etc. so are weeded out and cannot reproduce, although many already have. Their mutant kids will repeat unless they too die prematurely. Sadly modern society allows the mutants to survive much longer than they should (aborted mutant fetuses excepted of course).

 

[David_M]

I'm on board with survival as well. But it is the mutants that don't survive. They are killed by gunfire, disease, accidents, etc. so are weeded out and cannot reproduce, although many already have. Their mutant kids will repeat unless they too die prematurely. Sadly modern society allows the mutants to survive much longer than they should (aborted mutant fetuses excepted of course).

You know that we are all mutants? Every single one of us has dozens of mutations in our DNA. Those changes were not inherited from our parents, they occurred in the gametes that made us. Just another inconvenient fact for you to ignore.

 

[AV1611VET]

So your interpretation of the Bible means that you will outright dismiss an old Earth?

No.

The earth is as old as it is -- whatever that is.

So if the earth is 6000 years old, the earth is 6000 years old.

If the earth is 13.7 billion years old, the earth is 13.7 billion years old.

But however old it is ... 6000 or 13.7 billion ... it has only been in existence for 6000.

Or do you have evidence?

Evidence of what?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm on board with survival as well. But it is the mutants that don't survive.

Every single new born of every single species is a "mutant".

YOU, being a human, have an average of some 50-ish mutations in your DNA.

They are killed by gunfire, disease, accidents, etc. so are weeded out and cannot reproduce, although many already have. Their mutant kids will repeat unless they too die prematurely. Sadly modern society allows the mutants to survive much longer than they should (aborted mutant fetuses excepted of course).

Please learn how evolution works and what the word "fitness" means in context of evolutionary biology and how mutation might result int more or less fitness.

I know for a fact that you've already been lectured on this exact topic right here on these forums. Or at the very very least, you've read posts on here that explained it.


It is really amazing to see how the same falsehoods and "playing dumb" is repeated over and over and over... how creationists are corrected on the exact same points time and again, while a couple days later, when those posts are burried in the pages, they just repeat the exact same falsehoods.

I simply don't get it.

We can repeat a thousands times over "that's not how it works...this is how it works". And it's only a matter of days, sometimes even just hours, before we are back arguing about the same strawman.

One has to start wondering if it is being done on purpose...

Here's an exercise in honesty for you:
Name an instance of an observed mutation that had a positive effect on fitness either in the lab or in the wild.

I know of at least 3 that are regularly repeated on these forums.

When you gave us an example mutation, then please refer to the post I'm quoting here and then explain how your post is still valid in context of that example of a mutation that increased fitness.

 

[rjs330]

Assumption isn't the right word. Let me ask you this, do you believe that there is a billion of something? Have you ever counted to a billion? If you haven't directly observed every single number from 1-1000000000, then how do you know that there are a billion numbers there? Are you just making an assumption that a billion exists?

I can prove a billion exists because I can count that high. It might take a long time but I can do it. This is not about what I can do it is about proving something that happened in the past at a point where no one has ever been able to show actually happened. And we can't show it happens now. We assume so because no,matter how hard we try and no matter how we are different from,our parents we are still humans and monkey children are still monkeys and fish children are still,fish and lizard kids are still,lizards. They are not evolving into anything else.

 

[rjs330]

No, you do not understand evolution "very well" if your source of knowledge about it is a few threads on an internet discussion board.

Evolution has been witnessed many times. You say that speciation hasn't been observed, but you are wrong. Here is just one of several times: www.wsj.com/articles/scientists-observe-wasps-evolving-into-new-species-1446229404

I suspect that your opinion that you understand evolution well is merely an example of the Dunning Kruger effect.

Sorry I can't read that and don't feel like subscribing to do so. Since I can't read it does it say that the wasp is changing into something else besides a wasp? Is it turning into a bird?