Evolution - the illusion of a scientific theory

[sfs]

I think it is a problem, a rather well-known problem that is part of a greater problem for evolution in general - that natural selection really doesn't work well at all unless it is dealing with significant fitness signals, and that goes for either the inability of eliminating accumulating slightly deleterious mutants, or the inability of fixating slightly "beneficial" mutants.

So does that mean you're willing to defend the paper or not? I'll note that if this is a well-known problem, it has escaped the attention of most geneticists.

This flies in the face of the general picture that evolutionists paint for the public - the mythology that natural selection is an extremely efficient function-finding machine that can select for the slightest benefits or against the slightest drawbacks in its mystical shaping of new types of organisms.

I don't know who these mythical evolutionists are who are painting pictures for the public. I'm only talking about the science of evolutionary biology and what it says. I know that evolutionary biology works extremely well as a scientific theory in genetics, and that the one thing critics of evolution will never, ever do is offer a competing theory and compare predictions. That fact tells me that they are not serious about science or about understanding biology.

Your ambiguous claim about "predictions" is so loaded with baggage that I'm not going to waste my time trying to unpack it. If you have a particular argument to make, then why don't you make it instead of sending cryptic messages.

What cryptic message? I offered to predict the transition/transversion ratio in the comparison of human and gorilla genomes. That's pretty unambiguous and baggage-free. Now, can you find a creationist who's willing to make a similar prediction or not?

And you've failed to meet any of the challenges I've proposed in the last 20 pages of why Evolution fails as a scientific theory.

I'm afraid I don't always pay a lot of attention to your posts. Glancing at the thread, I see a lot of assertions and hypotheticals by you, and I see Kondrashov and I see de Beer. Where there any other real challenges in there? Of these two, the latter seems to be of the sort "I don't see how evolution could cause this", which is an argument (several decades out of date) in favor of research, not an argument against evolution. The former is one I know pretty well, and have previously dealt with.

It feels like you've been lurking in the background and now that you've seen the discussion finally go in a direction where you can try and dazzle people with complex jargon, you're chomping at the bit.

Uh, okay. I'm sure your charming personality wins you many friends, not to mention attracting many to Christianity.

For instance, Mr. Biologist, I've noticed you've been conspicuously silent on the homology problem that I've been bringing up since Page 1. I wonder why that is?

It could be because I'm terrified of your argument and am desperate to leave it alone. Or it could be because I'm a geneticist and prefer to focus on subjects I know something about. As it happens, I know very little about developmental biology. Why would I discuss it? So do you have any genetic arguments that I missed?

 

[crazyforgod1212]

Or it could be because I'm a geneticist and prefer to focus on subjects I know something about.

You claim to be a geneticist.

 

[sfs]

You claim to be a geneticist.

Indeed i do.

 

[46AND2]

You claim to be a geneticist.

Indeed i do.

lol. When one (crazyforgod1212) can't argue the topics at hand, simply call your opponent a liar. Instawin!

 

[PsychoSarah]

Because you equivocate 'change over time' with Evolution.

-_- evolution literally is populations changing over time, that is what the theory centers around.

 

[sfs]

lol. When one (crazyforgod1212) can't argue the topics at hand, simply call your opponent a liar. Instawin!

Now, now -- there's nothing wrong with being skeptical about people's claims, including mine. For most things (of substance) that I say, I can provide documentation upon request.

 

[46AND2]

Now, now -- there's nothing wrong with being skeptical about people's claims, including mine. For most things (of substance) that I say, I can provide documentation upon request.

Didn't say there was anything wrong with skepticism...it's all about how you respond to that skepticism...

 

[crazyforgod1212]

Now, now -- there's nothing wrong with being skeptical about people's claims, including mine. For most things (of substance) that I say, I can provide documentation upon request.

Then put up or shut up.

This should be good.

 

[HitchSlap]

Then put up or shut up.

This should be good.

LOL... sfs has probably forgotten more genetics than you've ever learned.


Troll.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

LOL... sfs has probably forgotten more genetics than you've ever learned

As long as theory coincides with the evidence of 50+ years of mutational experiments in which the genetic experts gave up on mutation as a viable source of new species, we won't have a problem.

But as long as "so-called" biologists ignore those 50+ years of experiments and the fact that the genetic experts abandoned it, we will continue to have "claims" of evolution.

The ones that worked with actual plant and animal mutations gave up on mutation, and no longer consider it a viable source to explain the creation of new species or genetic information. They realize it only turns on or off already existing genetic material.

There is no other solution, merely wild dreams and wilder interpretations.

 

[HitchSlap]

As long as theory coincides with the evidence of 50+ years of mutational experiments in which the genetic experts gave up on mutation as a viable source of new species, we won't have a problem.

But as long as "so-called" biologists ignore those 50+ years of experiments and the fact that the genetic experts abandoned it, we will continue to have "claims" of evolution.

The ones that worked with actual plant and animal mutations gave up on mutation, and no longer consider it a viable source to explain the creation of new species or genetic information. They realize it only turns on or off already existing genetic material.

There is no other solution, merely wild dreams and wilder interpretations.

Yet speciation has been observed hundreds of times. Go figure.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yet speciation has been observed hundreds of times. Go figure.

No, individual species has been observed, but never one species evolving into another species. Besides, with your mixed up definition of species which you violate left and right, go figure.

You list Tiger and Lion as two separate species, yet it fulfills your prime definition of species, capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. Of course when they were classified, it was believed they could not produce fertile offspring, so such a mistake may have then been justified, but what is your excuse now???? Besides not wanting to change the books or taking away the discovery of a new species from the one that classified a Tiger as a separate species?

Just because you may classify something as a sub-species, does not mean it really is. Half of them you classify on looks, or niche, or just because you want a new species so you can get your names in the books.

http://www.ted.com/talks/jack_horner_shape_shifting_dinosaurs

 

[sfs]

Then put up or shut up.

This should be good.

Okay. This is me. For some context on the meaning of those citation numbers, you can also look me up by name here. If you want to confirm that that's really me, my email address is my user name here (sfs) + @broadinstitute.org. Email me.

(Like lambs to the slaughter. . . Sometimes I'm not very nice.)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Okay. This is me. For some context on the meaning of those citation numbers, you can also look me up by name here. If you want to confirm that that's really me, my email address is my user name here (sfs) + @broadinstitute.org. Email me.

(Like lambs to the slaughter. . . Sometimes I'm not very nice.)

And this means what???? That you are just as wrong as was every mainstream scientist that once claimed the Milky-Way was the entire universe????? We were assured you were correct then too.

Just as we were assured you were correct when classifying dinosaurs. Just as they are wrong about evolution?

Just as we were assured for how many years that Archaeopteryx was the transitional species between birds and dino?

Just as we were assured for how many years that those skulls were what you thought they were?

Just as we were assured for how many years that coelacanth was the transitory species between fish and amphibian, until one was found alive and could actually be studied?

The track record really isn't very good and leaves no room for such profound claims of being right.

 

[sfs]

And this means what????

It mean I'm a geneticist, as I claimed. You do go on about stuff, don't you?

 

[DerelictJunction]

And this means what???? That you are just as wrong as was every mainstream scientist that once claimed the Milky-Way was the entire universe????? We were assured you were correct then too.

Just as we were assured you were correct when classifying dinosaurs. Just as they are wrong about evolution?

Just as we were assured for how many years that Archaeopteryx was the transitional species between birds and dino?

Just as we were assured for how many years that those skulls were what you thought they were?

Just as we were assured for how many years that coelacanth was the transitory species between fish and amphibian, until one was found alive and could actually be studied?

The track record really isn't very good and leaves no room for such profound claims of being right.

Then it's a good thing that creation scientists were there to straighten out the errors of those cosmologists and paleontologists.....oh, wait. You mean it wasn't evidence gleaned from the Bible that lead the scientific community abandon these previously held conclusions?

 

[Loudmouth]

And this means what???? That you are just as wrong as was every mainstream scientist that once claimed the Milky-Way was the entire universe????? We were assured you were correct then too.

If you are so sure of yourself, then take up the challenge that sfs has put forward.

Just as we were assured you were correct when classifying dinosaurs. Just as they are wrong about evolution?

They weren't dinosaurs?

Just as we were assured for how many years that Archaeopteryx was the transitional species between birds and dino?

Transitional does not mean ancestral. Perhaps you should learn what these terms mean before criticizing scientists.

Just as we were assured for how many years that those skulls were what you thought they were?

They are still transitional.

Just as we were assured for how many years that coelacanth was the transitory species between fish and amphibian, until one was found alive and could actually be studied?

1. Coelocanth is not the name of a species. It is a group of over 100 species with the modern species in their own genus, a genus that is not found anywhere in the fossil record.

2. Coelacanths were never claimed to be a transitional species.

3. A species can be transitional without being ancestral.

The track record really isn't very good and leaves no room for such profound claims of being right.

Another irony meter explodes.

 

[lasthero]

Just, I'm in a hurry , but I've got one question - who suggested that coelacanths are a transitional (not transitory) species? I think you mixed up your PRATTs.

 

[Dizredux]

And this means what???? That you are just as wrong as was every mainstream scientist that once claimed the Milky-Way was the entire universe????? We were assured you were correct then too.

Just as we were assured you were correct when classifying dinosaurs. Just as they are wrong about evolution?

Just as we were assured for how many years that Archaeopteryx was the transitional species between birds and dino?

Just as we were assured for how many years that those skulls were what you thought they were?

Just as we were assured for how many years that coelacanth was the transitory species between fish and amphibian, until one was found alive and could actually be studied?

The track record really isn't very good and leaves no room for such profound claims of being right.

An yet none of those indicate any problems with evolution. Go figure.

Dizredux

 

[Loudmouth]

No, individual species has been observed, but never one species evolving into another species.

Yes, they have.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Some More Observed Speciation Events

You list Tiger and Lion as two separate species, yet it fulfills your prime definition of species, capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.

It isn't the capability of interbreeding. It is whether or not they do. They don't. The probability of a lion mating with a lion is orders of magnitude higher than a lion mating with a tiger. That makes them different species.

Of course when they were classified, it was believed they could not produce fertile offspring, so such a mistake may have then been justified, but what is your excuse now????

Being capable of producing offspring does not mean that they are the same species.

Just because you may classify something as a sub-species, does not mean it really is.

Right back atcha.

Show us that the gene flow between the lion and tiger populations is the same as within the tiger and lion populations. If you can't, then they are separate species.