Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution

[bhsmte]

Nope, not in the way you imagine.

Defibrillators (the shock machine in every hospital tv show) does NOT start the heart beating again when it has stopped ie. flatlined (known as asystole)

What the defibrillator does is correct the heart rhythm, for example during a heart attack. The defibrillator by its very name corrects fibrillation - erractic, fast and uncoordinated beating. Using electric shocks on someeone whose heart has stopped beating will have no effect. In that situation you have to use CPR compressions and inject medicine.

Sorry, but the cliche put forward by all the movies and tv shows of people having their hearts restarted by electric shocks is completely wrong.

You are correct. A true complete cardiac arrest, will typically not respond to a defibrillator, because they are designed to get a heart back in normal rhythm.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your smart enough to figure out that the shock gets the heart beating again and the heart restores the oxygen to the cells. Otherwise I have no idea what point it is that you are trying to make.

Do you even understand why an electrical shock restarts the heart and establishes a normal rhythm?

Do you think that there is something in electricity that the dying body is missing?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Do you even understand why an electrical shock restarts the heart and establishes a normal rhythm?

Do you think that there is something in electricity that the dying body is missing?

Come on, you don't really expect people that ignore the electrical force in the universe are going to ever admit to it in anything do you? They are still trying to take that force out of the model of the atom. That's why Supersymmetry was just falsified, another failed attempt to divorce the electrical force from the atom. People intent on taking it out of the atom sure are not going to accept it in any other theory.

Just like those same people want to violate E=mc^2 in reality by trying to model a non-electrical atom and universe. Those same people that ignore 99% of the universe for Fairie Dust. What else can you really expect?

 

[Loudmouth]

Come on, you don't really expect people that ignore the electrical force in the universe are going to ever admit to it in anything do you? They are still trying to take that force out of the model of the atom. That's why Supersymmetry was just falsified, another failed attempt to divorce the electrical force from the atom. People intent on taking it out of the atom sure are not going to accept it in any other theory.

Just like those same people want to violate E=mc^2 in reality by trying to model a non-electrical atom and universe. Those same people that ignore 99% of the universe for Fairie Dust. What else can you really expect?

Still tilting at the same worn out windmills.

Do you understand why electrical shocks are used to establish a normal heart rhythm? Yes or no?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Nope, not in the way you imagine.

Defibrillators (the shock machine in every hospital tv show) does NOT start the heart beating again when it has stopped ie. flatlined (known as asystole)

What the defibrillator does is correct the heart rhythm, for example during a heart attack. The defibrillator by its very name corrects fibrillation - erractic, fast and uncoordinated beating. Using electric shocks on someeone whose heart has stopped beating will have no effect. In that situation you have to use CPR compressions and inject medicine.

Sorry, but the cliche put forward by all the movies and tv shows of people having their hearts restarted by electric shocks is completely wrong.

That is because flatline means the electrical activity of the heart has stopped, and one can be certified as clinically dead. Because there is NO ELECTRICAL ACTIVITY, beyond the atoms own electrical interactions. Even so one might be revived as long as electrical activity still exists in the brain. Once that has stopped it is useless as brain damage has occurred, and the body will not function without intervention.

Asystole - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In medicine, asystole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Keyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Keyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Keyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Keyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Keyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Keyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Keyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA_for_English#Keycolloquially known as flatline, is a state of no cardiac electrical activity,...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Still tilting at the same worn out windmills.

Do you understand why electrical shocks are used to establish a normal heart rhythm? Yes or no?

Don't you understand that electrical activity is what makes the heart beat in the first place? And that shocks are used to restart what has become an unbalanced electrical activity?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinoatrial_node

Although all of the heart's cells have the ability to generate the electrical impulses (or action potentials) that trigger cardiac contraction, the sinoatrial node normally initiates it,

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't you understand that electrical activity is what makes the heart beat in the first place?

How so?

And that shocks are used to restart what has become an unbalanced electrical activity?

What is unbalanced?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How so?

What is unbalanced?

Sinoatrial node - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although all of the heart's cells have the ability to generate the electrical impulses (or action potentials) that trigger cardiac contraction, the sinoatrial node normally initiates it...Because the sinoatrial node is responsible for the rest of the heart's electrical activity, it is sometimes called the primary pacemaker.

It is when the other cells start generating these electrical impulses not together, but at different times that causes the heart to stop it's normal rhythm. The electrical impulses are no longer "in-time", but are being generated at different intervals from an SN out of sync.

Sinus node dysfunction describes an irregular heartbeat caused by faulty electrical signals of the heart. When the heart's sinoatrial node is defective, the heart’s rhythms become abnormal – either too fast, too slow, or a combination

It's all electrical, from the atom to the universe, with us in between and the sooner everyone realizes it the better off we will all be scientifically.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sinoatrial node - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In your own words, please. I am seeing if you understand what those pages are saying.

It is when the other cells start generating these electrical impulses not together, but at different times that causes the heart to stop it's normal rhythm. The electrical impulses are no longer "in-time", but are being generated at different intervals from an SN out of sync.

What are these electrical impulses?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

In your own words, please. I am seeing if you understand what those pages are saying.



What are these electrical impulses?

Those pages are saying that the SN generates electrical impulses that propegate to the rest of the hearts cells, causing them to contract, without which your heart would not beat at all. No muscle in your body would work without electrical impulses. Your brain would not work without electrical impulses.

The electrical impulses are caused from positive and negative ions that react to signals sent from the brain and that also occur in the brain to make it function. Any movement of charged particles in relation to another is an electrical current. They like to call them voltage-gated ion channels in biology, and the process an action potential.

Action potential - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

n physiology, an action potential is a short-lasting event in which the electrical membrane potential of a cell rapidly rises and falls, following a consistent trajectory.

I understand it just fine, it is you I am wondering about? How many times must biologists use the word electrical or voltage before you accept it as fact? Not a single description of how the heart or brain or body works fails to use those words over and over and over.

 

[Loudmouth]

Those pages are saying that the SN generates electrical impulses that propegate to the rest of the hearts cells, causing them to contract, without which your heart would not beat at all. No muscle in your body would work without electrical impulses. Your brain would not work without electrical impulses.

I am asking what the electrical impulses are.

The electrical impulses are caused from positive and negative ions that react to signals sent from the brain and that also occur in the brain to make it function.

That is completely wrong. First, it is only positive ions that are being moved about, most notably potassium and sodium. This is not the movement of electrons through a conductor. Second, the brain is not directly controlling ions. Axons use a combination of salt pumps and gates to produce an action potential. The pumps move positive ions to the outside of the axon, and the gates react to force (as is the case with eletrical shock) or to neurotransmitters. This is not an electrical current. This is the diffusion of positive ions down a concentration gradient.

Any movement of charged particles in relation to another is an electrical current.

A wave of salt water containing dissolved ions is not an electrical current.

They like to call them voltage-gated ion channels in biology, and the process an action potential.

The voltage refers to the difference in charge between the outside and the inside of the axon. This difference is charge is equalized by diffusion, not the transfer of electrons. This is very different from the electrical charge on the paddles of a defibrillator where there is a flow of electrons through conductors. It is actually not the electricity itself that causes all of the nerves to fire. It is the physical force caused by the shock that causes the ion gates to open. If you lack an electrical defibrillator you can actually use direct physical manipulation to attain the same results.

How many times must biologists use the word electrical or voltage before you accept it as fact?

I happen to think that the differences between electricity in a wire and nerve impulses are worth pointing out. Nerves are not wires conducting electricity. Your brain is not controlling ions at a distance.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I am asking what the electrical impulses are.



That is completely wrong. First, it is only positive ions that are being moved about, most notably potassium and sodium. This is not the movement of electrons through a conductor.

Wrong. Apparently you have misconceptions of what electric current is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current
"An electric current is a flow of electric charge... A flow of positive charges gives the same electric current, and has the same effect in a circuit, as an equal flow of negative charges in the opposite direction. Since current can be the flow of either positive or negative charges, or both,"

And if you knew anything at all you would know that it is not electrons or ions by themselves that matter, but they are moving in relation to other charges. A wire is not made up of just electrons, the free electrons drift in relation to the positive protons. Yet the EM force moves along the wire at the speed of c. it is NOT electrons or positive ions that are the electrical current, it is the EM fields that travel along the wire at the speed of c that is what you seek. You are confused as to what electrical current really is. It is the movement of any charge in relation to any other charge, be they positive or negative. This movement causes the EM current that does the actual work and carries the actual energy. Thos ions or electrons are not carrying anything.

Neuron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"A neuron also known as a neurone or nerve cell) is an electrically excitable cell that processes and transmits information through electrical and chemical signals."

"All neurons are electrically excitable, maintaining voltage gradients across their membranes by means of metabolically driven ion pumps, which combine with ion channels embedded in the membrane to generate intracellular-versus-extracellular concentration differences of ions such as sodium, potassium, chloride, and calcium. Changes in the cross-membrane voltage can alter the function of voltage-dependent ion channels. If the voltage changes by a large enough amount, an all-or-none electrochemical pulse called an action potential is generated, which travels rapidly along the cell's axon, and activates synaptic connections with other cells when it arrives."

First you need to grasp what an ion is:

Ion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"An ion is an atom or molecule in which the total number of electrons is not equal to the total number of protons, giving the atom a net positive or negative electrical charge."


Electric charge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Electric charge is the physical property of matter that causes it to experience a force when close to other electrically charged matter."

That's what makes them all move in the same general direction, two positive ions by themselves would repel in opposite directions, without a negative, as electrons in a wire would go nowhere without positive protons nearby to move against.

Second, the brain is not directly controlling ions. Axons use a combination of salt pumps and gates to produce an action potential. The pumps move positive ions to the outside of the axon, and the gates react to force (as is the case with eletrical shock) or to neurotransmitters. This is not an electrical current. This is the diffusion of positive ions down a concentration gradient.

Only because you refuse to accept how each of those works.

Action potential - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"n physiology, an action potential is a short-lasting event in which the electrical membrane potential of a cell rapidly rises and falls, following a consistent trajectory."

Voltage-gated ion channel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Voltage-gated ion channels are a class of transmembrane ion channels that are activated by changes in electrical potential difference near the channel; these types of ion channels are especially critical in neurons, but are common in many types of cells."

Ion transporter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In biology, an ion transporter, also called an ion pump, is a transmembrane protein that moves ions across a plasma membrane against their concentration gradient, in contrast to ion channels, where ions go through passive transport. These primary transporters are enzymes that convert energy from various sources, including ATP, sunlight, and other redox reactions, to potential energy stored in an electrochemical gradient. This energy is then used by secondary transporters, including ion carriers and ion channels, to drive vital cellular processes, such as ATP synthesis."

Na+/K+-ATPase - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A wave of salt water containing dissolved ions is not an electrical current.

Because if you knew anything about waves you would know that thought does not even apply here, as particles in waves merely all move up and down together. They do not move in a current from a starting voltage to an ending voltage. Nor does a river flow from a starting voltage to an ending voltage, merely follows the terrain. Voltage does not matter what the gravitational force is. You do not have to place your coffee pot below the plug-in for it to work. Nor does standing on your head affect how your brain or muscles works except for the pooling of blood. Nor does one even need gravity, as they work just as well in space.

The voltage refers to the difference in charge between the outside and the inside of the axon. This difference is charge is equalized by diffusion, not the transfer of electrons.

It is this difference in voltage that releases the ions, mere diffusion would not create a current flow in one direction, unless there was a reason they were all non-diffused to begin with and then reset. By electrical charge attracting or repelling them. What happens when these ions reach the receptor?

This is very different from the electrical charge on the paddles of a defibrillator where there is a flow of electrons through conductors. It is actually not the electricity itself that causes all of the nerves to fire. It is the physical force caused by the shock that causes the ion gates to open. If you lack an electrical defibrillator you can actually use direct physical manipulation to attain the same results.

Again you try to seperate one from the other. Your heartbeat is controlled by your sub-conscious mind, not itself.
Heart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"he heart is effectively a syncytium, a meshwork of cardiac muscle cells interconnected by contiguous cytoplasmic bridges. This relates to electrical stimulation of one cell spreading to neighboring cells.
Some cardiac cells are self-excitable, contracting without any signal from the nervous system, even if removed from the heart and placed in culture. Each of these cells have their own intrinsic contraction rhythm. A region of the human heart called the sinoatrial (SA) node, or pacemaker, sets the rate and timing at which all cardiac muscle cells contract. The SA node generates electrical impulses, much like those produced by nerve cells."

Autonomic nervous system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"he autonomic nervous system (ANS or visceral nervous system or involuntary nervous system) is the part of the peripheral nervous system that acts as a control system, functioning largely below the level of consciousness, and controls visceral functions.[1] The ANS affects heart rate, digestion, respiratory rate, salivation, perspiration, pupillary dilation, micturition (urination), and sexual arousal. Most autonomous functions are involuntary but a number of ANS actions can work alongside some degree of conscious control. Everyday examples include breathing, swallowing, and sexual arousal, and in some cases functions such as heart rate."

But you want to ignore all that don't you. The heart would not beat without the control of the brain except for a few cells that soon stop without a functioning brain.

I happen to think that the differences between electricity in a wire and nerve impulses are worth pointing out. Nerves are not wires conducting electricity. Your brain is not controlling ions at a distance.

I think the simularities are worth pointing out. And your brain is controlling them. It sends them from one neuron to the next along specific pathways to complete thoughts. Or below your conscious knowledge to keep your heart beating, your lungs working. To enable you to walk without thinking about it. And they know exactly where to send them.

Nervous system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"At the cellular level, the nervous system is defined by the presence of a special type of cell, called the neuron, also known as a "nerve cell". Neurons have special structures that allow them to send signals rapidly and precisely to other cells."

And yes, nerves are just like wires conducting electricity.
"They send these signals in the form of electrochemical waves traveling along thin fibers called axons, which cause chemicals called neurotransmitters to be released at junctions called synapses."

Nerve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
" A nerve is an enclosed, cable-like bundle of axons (the long, slender projections of neurons) in the peripheral nervous system. A nerve provides a common pathway for the electrochemical nerve impulses that are transmitted along each of the axons to peripheral organs."

Further reading:

Electrochemistry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And dealing with the body you deal with chemistry, which is the study of atoms:
Chemistry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And atoms are controlled by the electrical force, and none other.

 

[EternalDragon]

Within a timespan of 6,000 years, yes it is impossible. There is just too much variation.



I can't believe you've been here as long as you have and still don't understand the basics of population genetics. I will tell you one more time. Read carefully, now...

Populations evolve, not individuals

Got it now?

I just wanted to ask if you ever entertained the idea that if an intelligent creator created a male and female human, that they made them with variation already present? In other words, the ID'er made them capable of being able to start a population off with only two people?

 

[Valiantis]

1. Lack of a viable mechanism for producing high levels of complex and specified information. Related to this are problems with the Darwinian mechanism producing irreducibly complex features, and the problems of non-functional or deleterious intermediate stages. (For details see: "The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information," "Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones's Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum," "Opening Darwin's Black Box," or "Can Random Mutations Create New Complex Features? A Response to TalkOrigins");

2. The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution. (For details, see "Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record" or "Intelligent Design Has Scientific Merit in Paleontology");

3. The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for a grand "tree of life." (For details, see: "A Primer on the Tree of Life");

4. Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient;

5. The problem that convergent evolution appears rampant -- at both the genetic and morphological levels, even though under Darwinian theory this is highly unlikely. (For details, see "Convergent Genetic Evolution: 'Surprising' Under Unguided Evolution, Expected Under Intelligent Design" and "Dolphins and Porpoises and...Bats? Oh My! Evolution's Convergence Problem");

6. The failure of chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code. (For details, see "The origin of life remains a mystery" or "Problems with the Natural Chemical 'Origin of Life'");

7. The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development. (For details, see: "Evolving views of embryology," "A Reply to Carl Zimmer on Embryology and Developmental Biology," "Current Textbooks Misuse Embryology to Argue for Evolution");

8. The failure of neo-Darwinian evolution to explain the biogeographical distribution of many species. (For details, see "Sea Monkey Hypotheses Refute the NCSE's Biogeography Objections to Explore Evolution" or "Sea Monkeys Are the Tip of the Iceberg: More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism");

9. A long history of inaccurate predictions inspired by neo-Darwinism regarding vestigial organs or so-called "junk" DNA. (For details, ] see: "Intelligent Design and the Death of the 'Junk-DNA' Neo-Darwinian Paradigm," "The Latest Proof of Evolution: The Appendix Has No Important Function," or "Does Darrel Falk's Junk DNA Argument for Common Descent Commit 'One of the Biggest Mistakes in the History of Molecular Biology'?);

10. Humans show many behavioral and cognitive traits and abilities that offer no apparent survival advantage (e.g. music, art, religion, ability to ponder the nature of the universe).
- See more at: What Are the Top Ten Problems with Darwinian Evolution? - Evolution News & Views

If you move away from creationist web sites you will find that the basic premise for evolution is sound, a few wrinkles to iron out here and there but it will very likely never be bettered.

Creationists want both sides to be taught but they never want to see both sides themselves.
Evolution only conflicts with people who want to take the Bible literally, for everyone else it makes sense and is not a problem just because it (like all sciences) does not recognise the supernatural which is where our Gods are.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And yet evolutions require a leap of faith just like the creationists. How did life start from non-life? Well it just did say the evolutionists, have faith that it is so, believe. Come worship at the alter of evolution.

There is not one shred of physical evidence for evolution. It has never been observed, only kind after kind with variation in appearance. A cat has never became a different kind, no matter how its genes are manipulated, nor has a dog, rat, mouse or fruit-fly.

Not a single kind in existence has ever been observed to evolve into another kind, yet evolutionists want me to have faith that this is so. I have a religion of how life began consistent with observations, when you get a science let me know, I do not need two religions. If you want to say you believe life spontaneously evolved from non-life that's fine, but do not present as scientific fact what is not based on a single fact at all, nor on any observation, but is merely a matter of faith that it was so.

 

[lasthero]

How did life start from non-life? Well it just did say the evolutionists, have faith that it is so, believe. Come worship at the alter of evolution.

Please produce one, actual paper on evolution that said anything even close to this. I would love to see it, especially since evolution deals with the diversification of life, not the beginning of it.

A cat has never became a different kind

What's a kind? And please, don't give me examples - actually define it. Also, are house cats and tigers the same kind? If so, why are rats and mice not the same kind?

Not a single kind in existence has ever been observed to evolve into another kind, yet evolutionists want me to have faith that this is so.

Nobody ever said a 'kind' would give birth to another 'kind'. Stop creating strawmen.

If you want to say you believe life spontaneously evolved from non-life that's fine, but do not present as scientific fact what is not based on a single fact at all, nor on any observation, but is merely a matter of faith that it was so.

A thought - maybe you should actually argue against what the theory of evolution says, and not what you wish/think it says to suit your colostomy bag of an argument.

 

[Valiantis]

And yet evolutions require a leap of faith just like the creationists. How did life start from non-life? Well it just did say the evolutionists, have faith that it is so, believe. Come worship at the alter of evolution.

There is not one shred of physical evidence for evolution. It has never been observed, only kind after kind with variation in appearance. A cat has never became a different kind, no matter how its genes are manipulated, nor has a dog, rat, mouse or fruit-fly.

Not a single kind in existence has ever been observed to evolve into another kind, yet evolutionists want me to have faith that this is so. I have a religion of how life began consistent with observations, when you get a science let me know, I do not need two religions. If you want to say you believe life spontaneously evolved from non-life that's fine, but do not present as scientific fact what is not based on a single fact at all, nor on any observation, but is merely a matter of faith that it was so.

Every time you put out posts like this all you are doing is shouting to the world, 'I do not know the first thing about evolution', why do you do it?

I understand why you do not want to learn about evolution but please at least try and master the very basics.
The first thing to understand is that it is populations that change not individuals.

Stop getting your information about evolution from creationists because most of them know less than you.

 

[Davian]

And yet evolutions require a leap of faith just like the creationists. How did life start from non-life? Well it just did say the evolutionists, have faith that it is so, believe. Come worship at the alter of evolution.

There is not one shred of physical evidence for evolution. It has never been observed, only kind after kind with variation in appearance. A cat has never became a different kind, no matter how its genes are manipulated, nor has a dog, rat, mouse or fruit-fly.

Not a single kind in existence has ever been observed to evolve into another kind, yet evolutionists want me to have faith that this is so. I have a religion of how life began consistent with observations, when you get a science let me know, I do not need two religions. If you want to say you believe life spontaneously evolved from non-life that's fine, but do not present as scientific fact what is not based on a single fact at all, nor on any observation, but is merely a matter of faith that it was so.

You say, "I have a religion of how life began consistent with observations"

Show where your religion explains how the process of life began on this planet, that is consistent with scientific observations.

 

[Lethe]

I just wanted to ask if you ever entertained the idea that if an intelligent creator created a male and female human, that they made them with variation already present?

How many times are you going to repeat this idea that has been repeatedly addressed?


Question: Has there been some change in the function of genes in the last 5000 years?

 

[EternalDragon]

Every time you put out posts like this all you are doing is shouting to the world, 'I do not know the first thing about evolution', why do you do it?

I understand why you do not want to learn about evolution but please at least try and master the very basics.
The first thing to understand is that it is populations that change not individuals.

Stop getting your information about evolution from creationists because most of them know less than you.

The very basics is that natural selection and mutations cause species to have slight variations depending on environmental changes or other factors. That is how we get a variety of birds or dogs. This can happen fast by the way.

Darwinian Evolution looks at that, looks at DNA and structures and sees lots of similarities. They then infer that we all have a common ancestor and that a man can come from a primate animal or fish became a mammal walking on land. Those ideas have no basis in fact. They have not been observed, tested nor repeated.

They ignore mathematical probability and the fact that those processes are not intelligent and can't select for future plans or build anything complex. Evolution is a process working in reverse of natural laws. Don't fall for it, Valiantis!