Those interested in the foundational fallacies of Evolution.

[DynamicDrummer]

The various stages are all around us. For instance worms have a very primitive nerve cord with no brain center, and sharks have a spinal cord with a cartilige surrounding it. You can see that the nerve cord formed to allow the body to direct movment in various areas, and that eventually the nerve cord began to form protection to save itself from being cut. Bone>Cartilege>Nothing, so the evolutionary chain went that way.

So you are saying that worms are a good example of the "primitive" aspect of this, then sharks are sort of an "in-between" example because of their cartilage, and say a good example of the evolution process would be us humans who actually have bone to protect ours? You know what? Forget this dumb forum. All it does it get me frustrated. I've been in a bad mood because of this for the last couple of days. Later all...... . LAST POST!

 

[L'Anatra]

So you are saying that worms are a good example of the "primitive" aspect of this, then sharks are sort of an "in-between" example because of their cartilage, and say a good example of the evolution process would be us humans who actually have bone to protect ours? You know what? Forget this dumb forum. All it does it get me frustrated. I've been in a bad mood because of this for the last couple of days. Later all...... . LAST POST!

Settle down a little, man... no reason to get worked up.

Now, evolution does not have a goal, but rather is simply a natural process. All successful organisms are "good examples" of evolution, not just human beings.

All ThePhoenix was pointing out was that there are extant creatures with more primitive (and less well-protected) nerve cords than ours. So logical reasoning would lead us to believe that vertebrate nerve cords could have been more primitive in the distant past.

 

[Freedom777]

ok i finished the video.

he has one major idea, his creation machine with the problem of reversibility.

it's nothing more than a straw man, the answer to huxley is that infinity is a really long time, in fact, 12 billion years is an infinitesimal % of a countable infinity.

there are several nice sites on the monkey typewriter problem.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Infinite%20monkey%20theorem
will get you into the literature.


but he doesnt get into the fundamental question that evolution proposes a ratcheting mechanism that he dismisses out of hand where things have a differential in vs out equilibrium. this is the climbing of mt improbable illustration that dawkins uses so effectively.

all in all, a nice study in presentation, he is a good and effective preacher, but he doesnt persuade based on the material. first half is directed at abiogenesis, second half at the ad hominem arguments of evolutionists directed at creationists and how bad this is. i dont see anything extraordinary to discuss....

Thanks for your input. I am currantly looking into to link you gave about the monkey and typewriter, so far i have not found anything even trying to refute Wilder's Left handed typwriter argument, which i find valid.And this is very powerful evidence against macro-evolution.

"but he doesnt get into the fundamental question that evolution proposes a ratcheting mechanism that he dismisses out of hand where things have a differential in vs out equilibrium. this is the climbing of mt improbable illustration that dawkins uses so effectively."

This would be where information or a program comes in to play (design). Overriding the natural chemical processes of type in type out. But even design has limits(that is God made things according to there kind), macro-evolution does not happen, only genetic remnet variation or micro-evolution is observable. Micro is within the realms of empirical science. Macro is not.

 

[Freedom777]

Listening to his lecture, I see that his ideas on information are a bit off.

To create something specific, one does need specific information to create a specific thing, but evolution doesn't have a specific goal in mind, so natural selection is sufficient to create information about whatever results.

Sorry,your wrong. Purly natural chemical processes do not work that way.Type in Type out,thats how it works.To type in and not out requires a program to override the purly natural chemical processes.

 

[L'Anatra]

Thanks for your input. I am currantly looking into to link you gave about the monkey and typewriter, so far i have not found anything even trying to refute Wilder's Left handed typwriter argument, which i find valid. And this is very powerful evidence against macro-evolution.

I may be wrong, but Wilder's argument may be attacking abiogenesis. Evolution is a completely separate process, regardless of what you may believe.

"but he doesnt get into the fundamental question that evolution proposes a ratcheting mechanism that he dismisses out of hand where things have a differential in vs out equilibrium. this is the climbing of mt improbable illustration that dawkins uses so effectively."

This would be where information or a program comes in to play (design). Overriding the natural chemical processes of type in type out. But even design has limits (that is God made things according to there kind), macro-evolution does not happen, only genetic remnet variation or micro-evolution is observable. Micro is within the realms of empirical science. Macro is not.

How is so-called "macro"-evolution not observable? If you mentioned it before, please point me in the right direction. What is your definition of "macro-evolution?"

A potentially false interpretation of the Book of Genesis isn't sufficient evidence.

 

[L'Anatra]

Sorry,your wrong. Purly natural chemical processes do not work that way.Type in Type out,thats how it works.To type in and not out requires a program to override the purly natural chemical processes.

Natural selection is not a chemical process. Mutation, on the other hand, is a chemical process. Mutation creates new information. It does not require a program; mutations are copying errors in DNA.

As a result, your argument is flawed.

EDIT: As a side note, I haven't yet watched the videos... give me a few hours.

 

[Underdog77]

All successful organisms

Define sucessful organisms.

All ThePhoenix was pointing out was that there are extant creatures with more primitive (and less well-protected) nerve cords than ours. So logical reasoning would lead us to believe that vertebrate nerve cords could have been more primitive in the distant past.

Or if you believe what the Bible says logical reasoning would lead us to believe that God just decided to make them that way. It all depends on where you look from.

 

[Underdog77]

Natural selection is not a chemical process. Mutation, on the other hand, is a chemical process. Mutation creates new information. It does not require a program; mutations are copying errors in DNA.

As a result, your argument is flawed.

EDIT: As a side note, I haven't yet watched the videos... give me a few hours.

Mutation does not create new information but rather rearranges what information is already there.

 

[L'Anatra]

Define sucessful organisms.

I'd think a successful organism is one that is capable of surviving and perhaps even flourishing in its environment.

Or if you believe what the Bible says logical reasoning would lead us to believe that God just decided to make them that way. It all depends on where you look from.

Not really... it is a fact that living organisms existed in the distant past that are different to the ones that exist today. It is also a fact that extant living organisms can only have come from organisms that lived in the past. Therefore, if vertebrate mammals exist today, they must have existed in some form in the past.

So, since vertebrate mammals can only be found from a certain point in the past and onward, it is logical to say that they must have come from an organism that existed before the first vertebrate mammals. Thus, it is certainly possible to deduce that they existed in a potentially more primitive form in the past.

Since more primitive nerve cord structures can be found in modern organisms, this is clearly a possibility.

 

[L'Anatra]

Mutation does not create new information but rather rearranges what information is already there.

Re-arranged information is new information.

 

[Freedom777]

I may be wrong, but Wilder's argument may be attacking abiogenesis. Evolution is a completely separate process, regardless of what you may believe.

How is so-called "macro"-evolution not observable? If you mentioned it before, please point me in the right direction. What is your definition of "macro-evolution?"

The argument attacks both abiogenesis and macro-evolution.
Simply put, a cat will always be a cat. Although there are many varieties(micro-evolution or a better term genetic remnant variation). For a cat to turn into a mouse that would be (macro-evolution)

First, the fossil record shows only a handful of 'supposed' transitional forms when there should exist trillions*trillions of them and it should be very clear of there gradual steps from one kind to the next.This does not exist in the observable fossil record.

Second,Of the kinds that are alive today, none show no such evidence of it gradually turning into somthing else. And don't say because it happens to slow. Because,You are the one who has to prove that it does.I don't have to prove that it don't. The evidence of the past(fossil record) and present (living animals,natural chemical processes) firmly supports the theory that macro-evolution does not happen.Therefore, Macro-evolution is a relgion not Empirical Science.

 

[Underdog77]

Re-arranged information is new information.

Re-arranged info is not new info, we had it before it was re-arranged and we have after but nothing new is added. The unit may be a new unit; unit meaning different than the original.

Lets say I gave you a pack of playing cards. Every few million years you gave it a small shuffle. After 2.2 billion years would you have possibly obtianed new cards (information)? No. It would be impossible.

If the info you start out with is all you have to work with, you are limited in what you can do. Re-arranging it will just bring variations but will not bring new information.

 

[mhess13]

You are so full of it. You think you are so "intellectually superior" to me or anyone who asks you a question. Don't give me this bull about "we make sure everything they learn is authentic and valid" while we "YECs accept whatever 'evidence' that fits into thier beliefs without actually studying it". That is such a lie. That's why I like to ask you all why don't you go out and start winning people to Christ by preaching your message to all the "heretical" churches now-a-days? That's why I'd like to meet you face to face and debate you because this doesn't get anyone anywhere.

SSSSSSSSSSLAM!

 

[Freedom777]

Re-arranged info is not new info, we had it before it was re-arranged and we have after but nothing new is added. The unit may be a new unit; unit meaning different than the original.

Lets say I gave you a pack of playing cards. Every few million years you gave it a small shuffle. After 2.2 billion years would you have possibly obtianed new cards (information)? No. It would be impossible.

If the info you start out with is all you have to work with, you are limited in what you can do. Re-arranging it will just bring variations but will not bring new information.

I agree.

 

[gluadys]

Mutation does not create new information but rather rearranges what information is already there.

Are you talking about the quantity of information or about the content?

Example (using English)

bat

tab


Same quantity of information with the bits re-arranged. Therefore in terms of quantity: no new information.

But the content, the significance, the message, is different, no? Therefore, in terms of content, yes, new information.

DNA works the same way. The bits of information are the nucleotide bases. But the content, the message, is organized in codons of three bases each.

If atg is re-arranged to gta there is no increase in the quantity of information, but the message has changed. As a result of the re-arrangement, a different amino acid will be produced. And as a result of a different amino acid being produced, a different protein will be produced. And as a result of a different protein being produced, something in the growth pattern or physiology or behaviour of the organism born with this mutation will be different from that of its peers.

So, yes, re-arragement CAN deliver new information.

 

[PaladinValer]

SSSSSSSSSSLAM!

Because his post was a crude ad hom? Because his post didn't argue the issue? Because his argument was slaughtered by pure reason?

 

[L'Anatra]

SSSSSSSSSSLAM!

Not quite.

 

[El Guapo]

Lets say I gave you a pack of playing cards. Every few million years you gave it a small shuffle. After 2.2 billion years would you have possibly obtianed new cards (information)? No. It would be impossible.

In addition to what G-chick said (sorry I cannot recall your name off the top of my head), your analogy fails because it is certainly possible for more "cards" to be added when it comes to genetics. DNA base pairs are added all the time, sometimes in substantial quantities. Not only that, but many times more DNA is not even needed because junk DNA can simply be converted into sense DNA in the same simple, natural way that sense DNA can be turned into junk DNA. Thus, if I may continue w/ your analogy, you can not only whip out cards from the thin air periodically but you can also take some of the numerous excess blank cards from the deck and draw out new cards of your own.

Ta-da!

 

[Freedom777]

I may be wrong, but Wilder's argument may be attacking abiogenesis. Evolution is a completely separate process, regardless of what you may believe.

How is so-called "macro"-evolution not observable? If you mentioned it before, please point me in the right direction. What is your definition of "macro-evolution?"

A potentially false interpretation of the Book of Genesis isn't sufficient evidence.

Author: Stephen Caesar, ABR
Subject: Biology
Date: 1/31/2004


Intraspecific microevolution occurs frequently in nature. When a species endures outside stresses, such as environmental change or parasitic attack, its genetic code will flip an “on-off” switch, causing it to undergo minor changes that will give it a greater ability to deal with these stresses. Evolutionists claim that “macroevolution is microevolution writ large,” meaning that, over millions of years, microevolutionary changes will lead to the species evolving into a completely new, more advanced species (such as fish evolving into four-footed animals).
However, intraspecific microevolution does not result in transpecific macroevolution for two reasons: 1) Microevolutionary changes only go so far before hitting a “ceiling,” above which no changes occur. 2) When a species undergoes microevolutionary change in one area, it undergoes decline in another. If an organism microevolves an improved ability, say, to resist parasites, it may wind up living a shorter life, or being weaker or smaller, or having fewer offspring. This is called “fitness cost” or “fitness trade-off” (Buckling et al. 2003: 2107).

In the wild, many species undergo microevolutionary changes when they fan out from a common starting point and occupy different ecological niches (deserts, jungles, tundra, woodlands, etc.). Over time, different on-off switches in their genetic make-up will cause them to develop into different strains. However, one niche species is not an improvement over the other: each one is merely adapted for its specific niche. Angus Buckling and Matthew Wills (Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Bath, England), and Nick Colegrave (Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, Scotland), conducted experiments on the bacterium Pseudomonas fluorescens that confirmed this.

The three researchers took six cloned (thus genetically identical) batches of P. fluorescens and allowed them to colonize different ecological niches in a laboratory. Rather than witnessing the different niche species macroevolving into new, improved species, the scientists observed the following: “As predicted, populations increased in fitness through time but showed a greatly decreased ability to diversify….These results show that niche specialization may come with a cost of reduced potential to diversify” (Ibid.). This is fitness trade-off in action.

The ability of P. fluorescens to diversify into various ecological niches is a microevolutionary improvement, but it involved a cost, as always. The scientists reported that “adaptation itself is likely to limit a population’s ability to diversify, when evolution occurs in ‘rugged fitness landscapes’” (Ibid.). All six batches of bacteria were raised in different environments, and the scientists transferred each batch to a new environment six times. They reported: “In all lines, diversification after six transfers was much less than ancestral diversification, and there was an overall negative correlation between transfer number and ability to diversify” (Ibid. 2108).

Simply put, this means that with each transfer to a new environment, each batch of bacteria became less and less able (not more and more able, as Darwinism predicts) to diversify. The greater the number of transfers to an unfamiliar environment, the smaller the ability to diversify. This is microevolution hampered by fitness cost occurring before our very eyes. Yes, the batches did improve, in that they were able to adapt to the new circumstances they were placed in, but it cost them: “Fitness of genotypes did indeed increase through time in all replicates [all batches of clones],” the scientists reported, but “there was an overall negative correlation between fitness and ability to diversify…” (Ibid.).

They concluded: “Adaptation can limit the ability of bacterial genotypes to diversify genetically. This was not the result of generalist evolution or the evolution of an intrinsic reduction in evolvability, but was caused by environment-specific adaptation” (Ibid. 2109).

You can adapt or diversify—but you can’t do both. Evolutionists predict that both should happen, with no trade-off occurring. Over time, each batch of P. fluorescens should continue adapting and diversifying until they become new, improved, separate species, all having evolved out of a common ancestor. This simply has not happened, nor can it. The ceiling has been reached.

Buckling, A., et al. 2003. “Adaptation Limits Diversification of Experimental Bacterial Populations.” Science 302, no. 5653.http://www.rae.org/index.html

 

[Card42]

You might say all the evidence points to evolution and away from a literal 6-day account of Genesis. Let me see this evidence. I will be willing to look through it even though I probably have seen it already and it made me start doubting this "sacred" evolution theory I held onto.

not directly related to evolution
but how can we see light
from stars
millions of light-years away
if the earth is <6k years old
that's one question
that got me thinking

i know
u'll probably say
maybe the speed of light changed [rolleyes]
but there's no evidence for that
and u asked about evidence