Evolution - the illusion of a scientific theory

[CabVet]

Evolution itself is the central religious creation story of universal common descent that you believe in.

Beautiful, another creationist using religion and belief as insults. Next he will claim that Christianity is not a religion.

 

[Split Rock]

Beautiful, another creationist using religion and belief as insults. Next he will claim that Christianity is not a religion.

Its a personal relationship with Jesus.. dum evo.

 

[sfs]

Orphan genes.

Orphan gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not orphan genes -- thousands of orphan genes in humans but not in chimps. I do know what "orphan gene" means. (A moderately intelligent six grader could figure out what it means just from its context here.)

Aren't you supposed to be some kind of scientist? Your true colors are starting to show...

Uh, right.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not orphan genes -- thousands of orphan genes in humans but not in chimps. I do know what "orphan gene" means. (A moderately intelligent six grader could figure out what it means just from its context here.)


Uh, right.

What is the number of chimp genes not found in humans and human genes not found in chimps (ignoring duplication and pseudogenes)? It is somewhere between 50 and 500, isn't it?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Evolution itself is the central religious creation story of universal common descent that you believe in.

A 'model' of Evolution would be.. say.. evolution of birds from dinosaurs, or some other sub-theory like that.

 

[lifepsyop]

What is a "committed believer?" I accept the theory of evolution as it is the best scientific explanation for the diversity and distribution of life on earth, and because it has not been falsified. That is all.

That is the evolutionist party-line whether or not it is true, and whether or not one has even assessed the evidence for themselves. If someone says they have nothing personally invested in their belief about origins, that's when you know they are bluffing.

Many evolutionists would (and will) experience philosophical horror if they were to find out they are created by God and will be accountable to that God.

I have often said here that you cannot escape your ancestry. This is why it is quite incorrect to say that evolution can "potentially build anything." Evolution is constrained by
1. physical requirements
2. heredity

This is why horses with feathered wings and giant ants as big as a car do not exist in the real world.

Oh please, from an evolutionary perspective, do tell why a mammal could not possibly ever have evolved feathers or wings. This is always fun, because your theory has no such constraints. Another evolutionist on here played this card and ended up having to backpedal to the position that such mammalian feathers would not be 100% identical to birds, (which would be kind of silly to expect since even closely related "homologies" can be quite different.)

I accept that you impose certain physical requirements and evolutionists aren't expecting to find teleporting rhinos or galaxy-sized mushrooms and other such clear physical impossibilities. This is hardly robust criteria though.

Sure there is. Some details are still controversial, but for the most part it consistent between morphology/ chemistry and genetics.

For the most part similar types of organisms have similar molecular traits as well, so there is of course a "consistence" to life which evolutionists disguise as a pattern of common descent, however there is no objective nested hierarchy of common descent. I've provided examples of this in the OP. Evolutionists can not even objectively distinguish a homology from a convergence. Furthermore, homologies at a morphological level can be contradicted at the developmental or molecular level. This is fatal to the mistaken idea that scientists have somehow worked out the gist of common ancestry.

How so? The fact is that no pesticide or antibiotic has ever eliminated a target organism. Other factors must be utilized, such as mass vaccination, and elimination of other host species to serve as reservoirs, etc. We succeeded with smallpox, only because it requires a human host. Polio is also doable, but still hangs on in Africa because of inefficient application of the mass vaccination programs required.

That's great, but if an organism failed to "evolve" and adapt to some environmental challenge, you would just say the selection pressures were too extreme. Otherwise the fact that species have gone extinct in the past would falsify Evolution, which I'm sure you didn't intend to argue.

Either it is incomplete (or nearly so) or it is not. You have admitted it is incomplete. Now you are vacillating.

I never said the fossil record was 'complete'. That would be impossible for the very fact that humans would have had to dig up every square inch of rock on Earth.

What I said is that there is a consistent pattern of discovery that indicates the fossil record is mostly complete in terms of representatives of major body-plans. Unless paleontologists keep finding them by lottery odds and missing all of the fantasy intermediates that evolutionists believe in.

I used jaws as an example, only. There are many other features that evolved in this transition and are documented in the fossil record. Others are not documented because they require soft tissue; in some cases these can be inferred from the fossils.

There are also many other features that do not appear transitory at all. These are ignored of course in service of storytelling. You are imposing your belief onto the data.

Various features of a transition do not always change at the same time. This is not a problem.

Of course it's "not a problem", according to evolution theory one trait can be evolving one way while several other traits exhibit reversals or homoplasies. It just goes to show how subjective your methodology is.

We are dealing with many different populations in many different environments and locations over a long time period. Therefore, such a scenario is not impossible.

Of course, that's the universal non-explanation of how natural selection did everything.

The proposed "reptile-mammal" transition itself could be convergent evolution. "It's not impossible", and you couldn't even identify it if it was convergent. You have no objective methodology to discern such a thing.

Is the trait one that tends not to fossilize?

When we look at derived features, we tend to find them in only more advanced species. For example, let's look at whales. Primitive whales all have teeth, and not baleen. Baleen is a derived feature, whereas teeth are a primitive one. Also, the blowhole tends to be closer to the tip of the snout, also a primitive feature. Blow holes are derived. We also find that primitive whales have four legs rather than just two... another example of the derived trait being found where expected. Is this all just a coincidence?

There is plenty of fudging and storytelling at work with morphological traits in the supposed "whale evolution" story but you missed the point.

It doesn't matter if more "derived" traits are found stratigraphically lower than more "primitive" traits. Advanced tetrapod trackways are found "millions of years" before organisms like Tiktaalik whichare supposed to be intermediate stages before such advanced tetrapods. Yup, this "is not a problem" either. What a robust theory.

It has to do with being able to breathe while eating. If that provides an advantage, it will be selected for.

That has nothing to do with why parts of the jawbone would have supposedly migrated up into the ear.

 

[sfs]

What is the number of chimp genes not found in humans and human genes not found in chimps (ignoring duplication and pseudogenes)? It is somewhere between 50 and 500, isn't it?

The largest estimate I've seen for brand new human genes (missing in chimpanzee as well as other apes) is 60. That study is controversial, however. Gene duplication is more common, but harder to pin down numbers for.

 

[CabVet]

For the most part similar types of organisms have similar molecular traits as well, so there is of course a "consistence" to life which evolutionists disguise as a pattern of common descent, however there is no objective nested hierarchy of common descent. I've provided examples of this in the OP. Evolutionists can not even objectively distinguish a homology from a convergence.

Let's talk genetics now, shall we? Let's for a second assume here that you are correct, and that God created every organism in this planet 6,000 years ago. Do you agree that there are genes that have the exact same function in rats, chimps and humans?

 

[USincognito]

Within ToE, "Evolution" is actually treated as a vague, mysterious creative power. The data can be entirely contradictory and still be absorbed as 'something evolution did'.

Horse feathers, pun intended.

This is because ToE is built on a metaphysical worldview, and not the rigid prediction-falsification criteria found in real scientific theories.

Quick! Someone contact Douglas Theobald and tell him to edit out all the prediction and potential falsification sections of "29 Evidences".

I can find any pro-Evolution presentation and you will hear them saying something like "we don't find mammals below this rock layer" ... "we don't find terrestrial organisms below this rock layer" etc. etc. "therefore Evolution!"

If by something like that, you mean that finding particular fossils in particular strata is consistent with the theory, constitutes a portion of the evidence supporting it and does not falsify it - but could serve as a potential falsification - then, yeah, you're going to find "something like" that in journals and lay publications.

This is a gigantic bluff. Like I said, if a fossil pattern had emerged where major taxa groups appeared in different rock layers, than the ToE would have been developed around that pattern.

I see you're still having trouble understanding the difference between "not falsified" and "not falsifiable".

 

[USincognito]

I'm talking about what committed believers think those mechanisms can do. They turn natural selection into a superstitious magical force that can potentially build anything - just add time.

This is also an example of that vague magical force that evolutionists make natural selection out to be. Though they have no clue why NS would even begin to favor gradually morphing a jawbone into an ear-bone, they are positive it happened because NS can do anything.

I love when Creationists act like evolution is just natural selection and not mutations plus selection. I love it more when you can't tell whether they are ignorant of that fact or they think we're stupid enough to be ignorant of that fact.

 

[USincognito]

Differences between humans and chimpanzees would be regarded as something natural selection did.

Humans have thousands of functional "orphan" genes not found in chimpanzees. This is regarded as something natural selection did.

Look everyone! There it is again. It's almost as if he's unaware of mutation... or is he.

Similar rationalization would be used for a chromosomal discrepancy. Maybe it would make humans and chimps far more divergent than previously thought, though of course they would still be argued to share a recent common ancestor.

Actually, no. In the case of Chimp 2a/2b and Human 2, we have honest to goodness genomic analyses supporting common ancestry.

(by the way, Ken Miller's simplistic descriptions of Chromosome#2 are about as dubious as the claim of 98% similarity between Humans and Chimps)

Perhaps sfs would be willing to provide you with more complex descriptions. I understand he has some familiarity with the subject.

 

[USincognito]

Oh please, from an evolutionary perspective, do tell why a mammal could not possibly ever have evolved feathers or wings. This is always fun, because your theory has no such constraints. Another evolutionist on here played this card and ended up having to backpedal to the position that such mammalian feathers would not be 100% identical to birds, (which would be kind of silly to expect since even closely related "homologies" can be quite different.)

Lies. I ended up having to do nothing of the sort. I explained, and you failed to comprehend, that:

- There's nothing that prevents mammals from evolving structures that would be functionally analogous to bird feathers. They simply would not be bird feathers.
- There's nothing that prevents mammals from evolving structures that would have a similar appearance to bird feathers. They simply would not be bird feathers though.
- If mammals were to evolve bird feathers, then evolution would be falsified.

Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I love when Creationists act like evolution is just natural selection and not mutations plus selection. I love it more when you can't tell whether they are ignorant of that fact or they think we're stupid enough to be ignorant of that fact.

It is interesting to notice this. Creationists often seem to be unable to discuss mutations and natural selection at the same time. Both are essential parts of evolution theory, and many of their arguments seem to be merely pointing out how mutations alone or natural selection alone cannot sustain evolution.

 

[EternalDragon]

It is interesting to notice this. Creationists often seem to be unable to discuss mutations and natural selection at the same time. Both are essential parts of evolution theory, and many of their arguments seem to be merely pointing out how mutations alone or natural selection alone cannot sustain evolution.

Mutations and natural selection don't cause change the way you
want it to or think it produces change. It only produces variation within
a species.

If it does what you think it does then you could simply change an
amoeba into a goat. Can you do that? If you can't then you're just
presenting a "what if".

 

[USincognito]

Mutations and natural selection don't cause change the way you want it to or think it produces change. It only produces variation within a species.

Substance free assertion bereft of supporting evidence.

If it does what you think it does then you could simply change an amoeba into a goat. Can you do that? If you can't then you're just presenting a "what if".

The fact that you think an amoeba "changes into a goat" tells us you need to learn some basics of evolution before you try and argue it.

 

[CabVet]

Mutations and natural selection don't cause change the way you
want it to or think it produces change. It only produces variation within
a species.

Baseless statement.

If it does what you think it does then you could simply change an
amoeba into a goat. Can you do that? If you can't then you're just
presenting a "what if".

You know so little about evolution that what you propose as "proof" of it ("changing" and amoeba into a goat) would be evidence against evolution.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Mutations and natural selection don't cause change the way you
want it to or think it produces change. It only produces variation within
a species.

If it does what you think it does then you could simply change an
amoeba into a goat. Can you do that? If you can't then you're just
presenting a "what if".

Well, actually, goats did come about after millions of years from a single celled life. Actually, mutation and natural selection produced all the great variety of life, not merely variation with a species.

Hmmm. We've traded dueling proclamations. Oh dear, how can we decide between dueling proclamations? I know . . . we'll look for EVIDENCE!

Let's check your feet. Do you, like most other humans, happen to have some vestigial digits there inside your shoes? No fair keeping them secret.

 

[lifepsyop]

Lies. I ended up having to do nothing of the sort. I explained, and you failed to comprehend, that:

- There's nothing that prevents mammals from evolving structures that would be functionally analogous to bird feathers. They simply would not be bird feathers.
- There's nothing that prevents mammals from evolving structures that would have a similar appearance to bird feathers. They simply would not be bird feathers though.
- If mammals were to evolve bird feathers, then evolution would be falsified.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Your argument is foolish because you are presenting a tautology. I explained this to you before. The very fact that such feathers would be occurring in mammals makes them non-bird feathers by definition. Even if they function the exact same way as birds and have highly similar molecular/developmental pathways... they would still be mammal feathers for the simple fact that they occur on mammals.

You may as well be saying evolution would be falsified if mammals weren't mammals. You're making no sense.

 

[lifepsyop]

Quick! Someone contact Douglas Theobald and tell him to edit out all the prediction and potential falsification sections of "29 Evidences".

Ashby Camp dismantled many of TalkOrigin's smoke and mirrors awhile ago.

A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s
“29 Evidences for Macroevolution”
- A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Intro -

 

[lifepsyop]

I love when Creationists act like evolution is just natural selection and not mutations plus selection. I love it more when you can't tell whether they are ignorant of that fact or they think we're stupid enough to be ignorant of that fact.

Wow, didn't think it was a big deal, but I'll go back to calling them culled genetic accidents if it makes you feel better.