Evolutionists Moving the Goalposts Again

[Edx]

This process, called genetic accommodation [2], is part of the new science of evo-devo, which renders much of the classical "evolutionary synthesis" obsolete, and at the same time explains how such phenomena as punctuated equilibria can be integrated into a unified theory of evolutionary development. In particular, genetic accommodation and similar processes can explain how natural selection alone can produce both rapid and directional change in phenotypes over time, thereby making any resort to "intelligent design" unnecessary and irrelevant.

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/06/random-mutation-and-natural-selection.html

Dang. I reckon you put your brand on a prairie dawg instead of steer, Supersport.

Isnt this a like a classic kind of Creationist misquotation?

 

[supersport]

Isnt this a like a classic kind of Creationist misquotation?

My goal is to do nothing more than to dismantle the neodarwin new synthesis. If you would like to abandon that for PE or any other wacky plan then that's fine by me...my goal will be accomplished.

p.s. you can mark random mutations off your list too.

 

[Cirbryn]

My goal is to do nothing more than to dismantle the neodarwin new synthesis.

Well congrats! You've met your goal already!



Although ... I suppose you might have meant your goal was to do nothing less than dismantling the NeoDarwinian synthesis. Good luck with that one.

 

[notto]

Well congrats! You've met your goal already!



Although ... I suppose you might have meant your goal was to do nothing less than dismantling the NeoDarwinian synthesis. Good luck with that one.

Then you really need to stop providing references that contradict your assertions. The source of the variation that is acted on in each o the examples you provided is due to random mutation in a small percentage of the population. My guess is that you simply don't understand what you are reading and don't understand that neither of these references represents the type of population wide adaptation without random mutation or variation you are suggesting.

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/06/random-mutation-and-natural-selection.html

Now consider a situation in which an environmental change (for example, a drought), selected for individual finches with larger beaks. At the level of the controlling homeotic gene, this could mean one of two things: either the larger beaks are still within the developmental limits of the original allele, or another allele (i.e a mutant) has arisen, with an overlapping developmental pattern but a higher mean value for beak size. If the former is the case, then a return to the original environment would result in a return to the original mean beak size.

http://biosingularity.wordpress.com/2006/02/04/scientists-evolve-a-complex-genetic-trait-in-the-laboratory

“The reason this ‘capacitor’ concept is important in understanding evolution and the origin of complex traits is that the common model is that a new trait gets started by a fortuitous single mutation,” said Nijhout. “And while that likely happens, we believe that another important mechanism involves the accumulation of many mutations in many genes without any apparent effect because they are buffered by a homeostatic mechanism; then all of a sudden one of them alters the homeostatic mechanism and lots of genetic variation suddenly explodes and is revealed as a tremendous increase in the phenotypic variability of the species. This variation then serves as raw material for selection to mold a new adaptive trait. And so that’s why we think these kinds of experiments demonstrate an important novel mechanism for the evolution of novel traits.”

 

[Beastt]

You know the theory of evolution is on the brink of utter collapse when an uneducated redneck hick from Texas like me can figure it out in just few months.

You seem to be suggesting that it's inappropriate to consider the source.

You're making the same claim which has been continually failing, at an accelerated rate, for the past 80-years.

The fact is, not only has this redneck figured out that neo-darwinism is false, but so has most of the scientific community. But I've noticed that the scientific community is playing a little game....it goes like this: "let's just keep this quiet and hope no one notices that the rug's been pulled out from under them and all the rules have changed.....Then, if/when people do start to notice, we'll say “Oh, yea…we’ve known that for a long time.”

It must be that none of them are interested in a hands-down win of the Nobel prize or any of the fame and fortune which would go along with it. They're far more enticed by the promise of living in anonymous obscurity and pulling the wool over the eyes of the highly educated while only "Texas" "rednecks" are smart enough to see through their world-wide conspiracy.

Well the fact is random mutations have never had anything to with evolution. Even this dude in the following link, who seems to have dislike for Creationists/IDists admits as much. In the article, if you can look past the rhetoric and biased against IDists, you’ll see these quotes, which in my opinion are pretty telling coming from an evolutionist:
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/20...selection.html

Yes, we should all abandon the scientists, the research, the demonstrations of how evolution actually proceeds in the lab and in the wild and instead go in search of nameless blogs to attain our knowledge.

In particular, while it is true that any given mutation is random (as far as we can tell), a series of mutations which are then preserved as the result of natural selection aren't really random at all…

Hence, the term "natural selection". Mutations are random. Which mutations persist and which are destined to fade from a species is based upon how those mutations affect the species ability to cope with the challenges of their environments. I'm fairly certain you won't succeed in refuting evolution by demonstrating how the mechanisms work to result in diverse species.

However, subsequent field and laboratory investigations into the genetic and developmental control of such variable traits have shown the multiple allele/continuous variation model upon which the "modern synthesis" was based is, in fact, not the way most traits apparently evolve…

This process, called genetic accommodation [2], is part of the new science of evo-devo, which renders much of the classical "evolutionary synthesis" obsolete…

A decade ago such comments would have been heresy….(and they still are, really).

The term "heresy" refers to religious beliefs, not to scientific demonstration.

In this next link, a scientist is attempting to show us something new. He has evolved different colors of the same worm based on temperature. While this is nice that it’s finally being shown in the lab, the fact is, the same thing is done in nature all the time. This stuff happens all over the globe. Look what this guy says:

Which demonstrates the inability of the OP to distinguish between adaptation already encoded within the genetics of a species and evolution which encodes new traits.

I think I'll quit right here and call Poe's Law.

 

[Beastt]

well actually you're right...nothing will really disprove evolutoin because it is a religion that lives in peoples hearts. In order to change one's outlook, the heart needs to be changed first. S

People of many different religions, all over the world, subscribe to the Theory of Evolution. How do you classify Evolution as a religion when people who subscribe to evolution hold such a wide variety of religious beliefs?

 

[supersport]

People of many different religions, all over the world, subscribe to the Theory of Evolution. How do you classify Evolution as a religion when people who subscribe to evolution hold such a wide variety of religious beliefs?

Good question....but I have a good answer:

Evolution is a religion because it's based on two concepts that require blind FAITH. The first is random mutations. The second is natural selection. Neither one of these things can be seen, tested or proven.....

Well actually NS could be proven by controlled experiments, however scientists appear to be too chicken to try such a thing. (just like they're too chicken to experiment by moving animals to different locations in the world to see what would happen to their phenotypes.) In fact, as far as I know, not ONE such experiment on natural selection has been tried. Of course I could be wrong about this, but if I am, I'd love to the see the link.

The fact is, your theory is based on sheer speculation and a desire to not be created. What you believe in is not science, it's Sesame Street-style make-believe. It's a fairytale for grownups who seek to deny the obvious. There is not one shred of hard evidence or truth to it. S

 

[notto]

In fact, as far as I know, not ONE such experiment on natural selection has been tried. Of course I could be wrong about this, but if I am, I'd love to the see the link.

You really should just read an actual book on evolution. There have been dozens of classic experiements on mutation and natural selection.

You have linked to discussions of them yourself in this very thread.

Apparently you don't understand what you are reading or you haven't read enough. That is the only way you could make a statement like this.

We have seen and directly observed natural selection and random mutation create new species. To suggest that new experimentation has been done is simply burying your head in the sand and admitting you are ignorant of the subject you wish to rail against.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

 

[notto]

(just like they're too chicken to experiment by moving animals to different locations in the world to see what would happen to their phenotypes.)

Have you ever been to a zoo? That place down the block where they take animals from different locations all over the world and put them on display for years at a time.

I think there might be a few in Texas. You should go some time. Why is it that polar bears in captivity all around the world look the same?

**Is the consensus Poe's law on this one?

 

[Beastt]

Good question....but I have a good answer:

Evolution is a religion because it's based on two concepts that require blind FAITH.

Neither of these concepts are born of blind faith. They are born of inconclusive evidence. It seems you have difficulty establishing the difference.

If what you claim were true, then the Theory of Gravity would also be a religion because we cannot demonstrate that gravitons exist, how they transmit force or what form they take.

The first is random mutations. The second is natural selection. Neither one of these things can be seen, tested or proven.....

Well actually NS could be proven by controlled experiments, however scientists appear to be to chicken to try such a thing. In fact, as far as I know, not ONE such experiment has been tried. Of course I could be wrong about this, but if I am, I'd love to the see the link.

All you need to do is look to modern medicine. Evolution is utilized routinely to develope predicted outcomes and without the predictability of those outcomes, many facets of modern medicine would simply fail to be productive.

It seems apparent that your familiarity with what has and has not been demonstrated in the lab is insufficient to allow you to properly support your efforts here. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that natural selection is the mechanism guiding the evolutionary development of species.

The fact is, your theory is based on sheer speculation and a desire to not be created.

Desire is the basis for creation, not for evolution. Evolution is based upon the observation of evidence and the application of those observations to steer biological outcomes in accordance with the mechanisms observed. Creationism relies upon nothing more than the blind acceptance of the claims of a book which includes the sun and moon existing within the Earth's atmosphere.

What you believe in is not science, it's Sesame Street make-believe.

Which you've been unable to support because much of what you offered in support of your claims actually serves to refute your claims. It appears you are somewhat lacking in the knowledge necessary to present even a passable challenge to the concepts you're attempting to refute.

It's a fairytale for grownups who seek to deny the obvious.

To what are you referring as "the obvious"?

There is not shred of evidence or truth to it. S

The entire theory is built upon evidence. What lacks evidence to support itself is creationism. It has only the Bible. Evolution has the fossil record, ERVs, observed increases in allele frequency, observed speciation, (dozens of properly/fully documented accounts), and the accurate predictions established through the understanding of evolutionary mechanics.

 

[Mincus]

Good question....but I have a good answer:

Evolution is a religion because it's based on two concepts that require blind FAITH. The first is random mutations. The second is natural selection. Neither one of these things can be seen, tested or proven.....

Poe's Law?

Well actually NS could be proven by controlled experiments, however scientists appear to be too chicken to try such a thing. (just like they're too chicken to experiment by moving animals to different locations in the world to see what would happen to their phenotypes.) In fact, as far as I know, not ONE such experiment on natural selection has been tried. Of course I could be wrong about this, but if I am, I'd love to the see the link.

Can't give links as I'm under 15 posts, however a simple google for something like "experiment natural selection" will provide you with links to experiments on natural selection. Likewise so will a google for "random mutation" provide you with links to websites on that.

Got to love the google.

The fact is, your theory is based on sheer speculation and a desire to not be created. What you believe in is not science, it's Sesame Street-style make-believe. It's a fairytale for grownups who seek to deny the obvious. There is not one shred of hard evidence or truth to it. S

Again with the Poe's Law? Maybe I shouldn't've answered seriously...

 

[Hydra009]

well actually you're right...nothing will really disprove evolutoin because it is a religion that lives in peoples hearts. In order to change one's outlook, the heart needs to be changed first. S

Wait a second...you just got caught red-handed doing a classic creationist quote mine, and you're switching the subject to another classic - "evolution is a religion!!!1" - all under the thread title of evolutionists moving the goalposts? Don't you see the irony in that?

 

[Beastt]

Have you ever been to a zoo? That place down the block where they take animals from different locations all over the world and put them on display for years at a time.

I think there might be a few in Texas. You should go some time.

Given his self-proclaimed background, caution might dictate that we remind him to leave his "huntin' rifle" at home.

Why is it that polar bears in captivity all around the world look the same?

**Is the consensus Poe's law on this one?

Yeah, I've gotta go with Poe's Law on this one.

 

[supersport]

Given his self-proclaimed background, caution might dictate that we remind him to leave his "huntin' rifle" at home.
.

http://home.hiwaay.net/~ispellan/Supersport01.jpg

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

 

[Beastt]

http://home.hiwaay.net/~ispellan/Supersport01.jpg

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

As that's an airgun, the only question left would be as concerns the temperature of the propellant.

 

[PromoterGene]

Good question....but I have a good answer:

Evolution is a religion because it's based on two concepts that require blind FAITH. The first is random mutations. The second is natural selection. Neither one of these things can be seen, tested or proven.....

I almost have a hard time believing that you are serious. Are you meaning to tell us that random mutations have never been observed nor natural selection? You can simply go to a hospital to witness natural selection in action. Why do you think there are multiple antibiotics out there and an insistence on limiting their use? Where is your head?

Well actually NS could be proven by controlled experiments, however scientists appear to be too chicken to try such a thing. (just like they're too chicken to experiment by moving animals to different locations in the world to see what would happen to their phenotypes.) In fact, as far as I know, not ONE such experiment on natural selection has been tried. Of course I could be wrong about this, but if I am, I'd love to the see the link.

Somebody already mentioned zoos and America is not exactly a natural habitat for apes, but they've been moved here. Although you're right about scientists being too chicken to move exotic animals all over the world being that it could disrupt the delicate balance of the environment. Often other animals become endangered or extinct when a new predator arrives on unfamiliar land. This has happened many times before even when we didn't willingly bring animals along. Mosquitos weren't willing brought to the states, but they pose an annoyance and a threat to us and other animals when they hitched a ride.

I'd provide links when I build up more posts to actually post them. The problem is that you have a world of information at your fingertips. Are you too lazy to do a simple search on google? Do you ever attend the local library and bother picking up books that contradict your deeply held convictions? I don't know how you think you can be taken seriously in a topic you don't even bother to educate yourself in.

The fact is, your theory is based on sheer speculation and a desire to not be created.

What does this say about those who believe a deity or deities created them using evolution as the mechanism? Conversely, what does that say about atheists who don't accept evolution? Both kinds exist, except the former as far more common than the latter. Claiming something as "sheer speculation" holds little weight coming from someone who has yet to immerse themselves in the data.

What you believe in is not science, it's Sesame Street-style make-believe.

Care to elaborate on that? So far you've done nothing but provide a website that you've misinterpreted to represent your stance and then spout a lot of say-sos while hand waving any decent response to your posts. That doesn't seem to be the behavior of an honest individual.

It's a fairytale for grownups who seek to deny the obvious. There is not one shred of hard evidence or truth to it. S

What is the obvious? Seems pretty obvious to me that if something provides results, it certainly has some standing. The theory of evolution does this. You're claiming a lack of hard evidence with a knowledge of, at best, a high school biology student. I'm getting the impression you're merely trying to prove to youself that your faith is true by arguing against something that seemingly flies in the face of it. It's not us who you're trying to prove creationism to, it's yourself and that's blatantly obvious.

 

[supersport]

I almost have a hard time believing that you are serious. Are you meaning to tell us that random mutations have never been observed nor natural selection? You can simply go to a hospital to witness natural selection in action. Why do you think there are multiple antibiotics out there and an insistence on limiting their use? Where is your head?.

Yea there are random mutations, but they are rarely, if ever, beneficial.....and not only that, but you guys have decided on the nucleotide as your unit of change....and what I am saying is that you have no proof of small nucleotides building up over vast periods time and passed down through generations to create animals and/or their traits. No proof what-so-ever. Thus, you are living on blind faith.

Somebody already mentioned zoos and America is not exactly a natural habitat for apes, but they've been moved here. Although you're right about scientists being too chicken to move exotic animals all over the world being that it could disrupt the delicate balance of the environment. Often other animals become endangered or extinct when a new predator arrives on unfamiliar land. This has happened many times before even when we didn't willingly bring animals along. Mosquitos weren't willing brought to the states, but they pose an annoyance and a threat to us and other animals when they hitched a ride.?.

No, I'm talking about controlled experiments. Science is afraid of doing controlled experiments on animals by taking them to separate locations in the world to see the difference different temperatures, locations might make in their phenotypes. Evolutionists say that microevolution and macroevolution use the same mechanism, but if the mechanims for microevolution is kicked out from under them by simple plasticity, then you're left in a boat without paddle. That's why I say they're afraid.


If you have links to such experiments I would love to see them. Prove me wrong.

 

[supersport]

cut and past of why I was banned at the infedel site:

You have been banned for the following reason:
None
Date the ban will be lifted: Never





​

 

[TheBear]

...nothing will really disprove evolutoin because it is a religion that lives in peoples hearts.

If evolution is a religion, then everything is a religion, and nothing is a religion, and the word 'religion' itself, becomes meaningless.

 

[fromdownunder]

cut and past of why I was banned at the infedel site:

You have been banned for the following reason:
None
Date the ban will be lifted: Never






​

Here is an actual link as to why you were banned.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=156672&page=14

A bit different than your version.

Norm