Natural selection is evolution?

[rittjc]

I have noticed a pattern here where evolutionists try to use Natural Selection to qualify as evidence of emerging new species. But why? Could you pick a more contradictory process?

- Natural Selection destroys the gene pool. How can a process that is highly destructive be floated as a concept of creation of new species? That's like believing you can put a bomb around buildings and some buildings survived because they evolved into a new structure because of the blasts and therefore could withstand the blasts.

- Natural Selection takes superior (variation wise) genetic information in a parents to produce a variation in the offspring that seems to be able to subjectively survive its environment, but it has less information in its DNA (as noted by inbreeding destroying the DNA the more it is done). Cut down the numbers, here comes the inbreeding.

- Natural Selection isolates information. How is reduction by isolation of DNA information, an opening to new possibilities? You simply can't get information blood out of a decaying DNA turnip. As we know from kennel clubs, you don't reintroduce original DNA the dogs become greatly deformed and eventually still born. Virtually every "pure" breed has some characteristic defect that appears because of the inbreeding. Too much DNA information gets destroyed.

- Even with the mythical and highly subjective "beneficial mutation" you still have a loss of information that contradicts the emergence of new. If you mutate a gene, you replace one that was critical in the parent. You don't create an new additional gene so the offspring has "more' variation options. You have less.

When asked by IDers and creationists to produce some evidence of any kind, circumstantial or otherwise, all you get from evolutionary faith is a self-contradicting application of Natural Selection. Nothing visible, nothing plausible, nothing reasonable.

I know most evolutionists just follow the piper, I sure did when I was one, but is it appears to be more important for evolutionists to deflect the unthinkable (creation) than it is to make sense of concepts.

I believe the perceived strength in numbers is the reason some cling to such a science contradicting faith. Why does anyone that is truly objective and demands reasonable arguments accept such not foundation-less, but also self-contradictory illogical claims ideas and put some kind of faith in it that would rival a Catholic's esteem for the pope? From destruction we get complexity? That's is non-sequitur.

And one more, if evolution uses such a dubious explanation, why would the not expect IDers and Creationists to be skeptical and to not demand evidence? After all, Natural Selection cannot be used to explained for abiogenises. You need "yet another" entirely "magic" unseen and provable process for that.

It is fascinating that what seem like at least reasonably intelligent people would be so out of character in their self-claims of "knowing" this happens.

[kellyb]

Do you 'believe in' natural selection when it comes to simple organisms like bacteria, or do you just think it doesn't work for animals?

[Wowbagger]

Perhaps it would help to know that natural selection is not always destructive of information. Sometimes it creates opportunities for new units of information to emerge, such as when a gene is double-copied.
Or, in the act of co-option: one feature that stayed around, because it managed to serve one purpose, ends up accidentally* serving another purpose, which drives selection to "re-mold" to feature.
Or take, for instance, the case of jumping genes, which have been observed to make copies of themselves faster than the host cell makes copies of itself.

If you give me some time, I will try to find that diagram, I once saw, that demonstrated all the various ways genes have been observed "creating" new information, rather than destroying it.

(*ETA: perhaps "accidentally" was not the best choice of words, here. But, I'll keep it, because I'm too lazy to change it to "being pressured into", and then having to explain that the pressure came from the heritage of its past evolution in the face of its current enviornment, and stuff like that.)

[cyborg]

- Natural Selection destroys the gene pool. How can a process that is highly destructive be floated as a concept of creation of new species?

Only the winners matter.

That's like believing you can put a bomb around buildings and some buildings survived because they evolved into a new structure because of the blasts and therefore could withstand the blasts.

Nope.

You make the first classic mistake - you mix up the design with the expression.

Natural Selection takes superior (variation wise) genetic information in a parents to produce a variation in the offspring that seems to be able to subjectively survive its environment, but it has less information in its DNA (as noted by inbreeding destroying the DNA the more it is done). Cut down the numbers, here comes the inbreeding.

Inbreeding does not 'destroy' DNA - inbreeding increases the chances of harmful recessive genetic traits being expressed.

As to the whole 'more information is better' fallacy - would you decide what computer software to buy based on its size in Kb or would you perhaps base it on what it does?

- Natural Selection isolates information. How is reduction by isolation of DNA information, an opening to new possibilities?

I can't even parse that.

You simply can't get information blood out of a decaying DNA turnip.

Nor that.

As we know from kennel clubs, you don't reintroduce original DNA the dogs become greatly deformed and eventually still born. Virtually every "pure" breed has some characteristic defect that appears because of the inbreeding. Too much DNA information gets destroyed.


See previous on inbreeding. You don't know what the **** you are talking about. There's no 'destruction' going on here.

Even with the mythical and highly subjective "beneficial mutation" you still have a loss of information that contradicts the emergence of new.

Eh?

If you mutate a gene, you replace one that was critical in the parent.

Er, no.

You don't create an new additional gene so the offspring has "more' variation options. You have less.

Even if that were always the case (it isn't) it is a fallacy that those who do not understand computation presume that more is better.

It isn't.

When asked by IDers and creationists to produce some evidence of any kind, circumstantial or otherwise, all you get from evolutionary faith is a self-contradicting application of Natural Selection. Nothing visible, nothing plausible, nothing reasonable.

Well not your presentation of it anyway - but you have no real idea what you are talking about.

I know most evolutionists just follow the piper, I sure did when I was one, but is it appears to be more important for evolutionists to deflect the unthinkable (creation) than it is to make sense of concepts.

I understand the concepts plenty. You do not/

I believe the perceived strength in numbers is the reason some cling to such a science contradicting faith.

Ah, so evolution belief is an argument ad populum.

Which you wish to argue should be replaced with another one.

Er... no.

Why does anyone that is truly objective and demands reasonable arguments accept such not foundation-less, but also self-contradictory illogical claims ideas and put some kind of faith in it that would rival a Catholic's esteem for the pope? From destruction we get complexity? That's is non-sequitur.

It sure is the way you use the words.

And one more, if evolution uses such a dubious explanation, why would the not expect IDers and Creationists to be skeptical and to not demand evidence?

You should be skeptical. First you should be skeptical of whatever ******** source it is you're getting this unbelievably poor characterisation of the mechanics of evolution from.

Then we can proceed like you give a **** about the truth.

After all, Natural Selection cannot be used to explained for abiogenises.

Sure it can - but that's another game with different rules.

You need "yet another" entirely "magic" unseen and provable process for that.

But aren't you arguing we should believe in an entirely "magic" and unseen deity?

It is fascinating that what seem like at least reasonably intelligent people would be so out of character in their self-claims of "knowing" this happens.

Well **** if all you've got to go on is whatever Creationist claptrap presentation of evolution then it's not surprising.

Are you ready for reality now? May we begin by assuming you don't know ****?

[Foster Zygote]

I have noticed a pattern here where evolutionists try to use Natural Selection to qualify as evidence of emerging new species. But why? Could you pick a more contradictory process?
You certainly could.

- Natural Selection destroys the gene pool. How can a process that is highly destructive be floated as a concept of creation of new species? That's like believing you can put a bomb around buildings and some buildings survived because they evolved into a new structure because of the blasts and therefore could withstand the blasts.
Wrong.

- Natural Selection takes superior (variation wise) genetic information in a parents to produce a variation in the offspring that seems to be able to subjectively survive its environment, but it has less information in its DNA (as noted by inbreeding destroying the DNA the more it is done). Cut down the numbers, here comes the inbreeding.
Wrong.

- Natural Selection isolates information. How is reduction by isolation of DNA information, an opening to new possibilities? You simply can't get information blood out of a decaying DNA turnip. As we know from kennel clubs, you don't reintroduce original DNA the dogs become greatly deformed and eventually still born. Virtually every "pure" breed has some characteristic defect that appears because of the inbreeding. Too much DNA information gets destroyed.
Wrong.

- Even with the mythical and highly subjective "beneficial mutation" you still have a loss of information that contradicts the emergence of new. If you mutate a gene, you replace one that was critical in the parent. You don't create an new additional gene so the offspring has "more' variation options. You have less.
Wrong.

When asked by IDers and creationists to produce some evidence of any kind, circumstantial or otherwise, all you get from evolutionary faith is a self-contradicting application of Natural Selection. Nothing visible, nothing plausible, nothing reasonable.
Wrong.

I know most evolutionists just follow the piper, I sure did when I was one, but is it appears to be more important for evolutionists to deflect the unthinkable (creation) than it is to make sense of concepts.
Wrong. And how could you have been an evolutionist and know virtually no actual facts about it?

I believe the perceived strength in numbers is the reason some cling to such a science contradicting faith. Why does anyone that is truly objective and demands reasonable arguments accept such not foundation-less, but also self-contradictory illogical claims ideas and put some kind of faith in it that would rival a Catholic's esteem for the pope? From destruction we get complexity? That's is non-sequitur.
Wrong. Except for the double negative "not foundation-less".

And one more, if evolution uses such a dubious explanation, why would the not expect IDers and Creationists to be skeptical and to not demand evidence? After all, Natural Selection cannot be used to explained for abiogenises. You need "yet another" entirely "magic" unseen and provable process for that.
Wrong.

It is fascinating that what seem like at least reasonably intelligent people would be so out of character in their self-claims of "knowing" this happens.
Reasonably intelligent people actually investigate and study things before they make claims about their function. So, have you any comments about the experimental verifications of Special Relativity I linked to?

[Wowbagger]

Oh yes, cyborg does make some good points: It is fallacious to assume "More" information is better; and that science does not "follow the piper", it follows the evidence; and science is not about "strength in numbers", it is about... evidence; and that you have a lot of reading to do, if you are going to learn what evidence we have acquired.

You might want to consider begining your journey, here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

[Foster Zygote]

Perhaps it would help to know that natural selection is not always destructive of information.

You'd be only the latest to explain it to him. He doesn't want to acknowledge it though. He wants his "natural selection is entirely destructive" claim to be true to the point of willful ignorance.

[cyborg]

Could somebody please tell me what the semantics of 'destruction' of information is in the context of the genome?

Thanks.

(Because, you know, being precise about these things is inconvenient I know but might be a good goddamn start).

[Wowbagger]

Could somebody please tell me what the semantics of 'destruction' of information is in the context of the genome?
The OP could correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was referring to the fact that natural selection kills off the varities that do not survive, and only keeps those that do, thus lots of "information" is being destroyed, and (according to the OP's arguments), life forms should look more and more alike.

Of course, the OP has yet to understand that there are opportunities for "new information" to emerge, and not just with single-point mutations; but all those examples I gave above, and others.

It doesn't help matters when the word "information" is being confused between its everyday sense, and its Information Theory sense. But, I have no time to give a lecture on Algorithmic Information Content (AIC), myself, right now.

[cyborg]

The OP could correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was referring to the fact that natural selection kills off the varities that do not survive, and only keeps those that do, thus lots of "information" is being destroyed, and (according to the OP's arguments), life forms should look more and more alike.

Yeah, like I said, only the winners matter.

It doesn't help matters when the word "information" is being confused between its everyday sense, and its Information Theory sense. But, I have no time to give a lecture on Algorithmic Information Content (AIC), myself, right now.

Yeah, nor do I.

[T'ai Chi]

Most of them will admit evolution is more than natural selection, but then at the same time say that evolution is basically non-random instead of a stochastic process, and will get angry if you call evolution random.

Go figure!

[cyborg]

And here's T'ai to chime in with some useless statements!

Hurrah! Now it's a proper thread on evolution!

[epepke]

I have noticed a pattern here where evolutionists try to use Natural Selection to qualify as evidence of emerging new species. But why? Could you pick a more contradictory process?

Do you realize that this kind of stuff just shows you how boneheaded you are?

And one more, if evolution uses such a dubious explanation, why would the not expect IDers and Creationists to be skeptical and to not demand evidence? After all, Natural Selection cannot be used to explained for abiogenises. You need "yet another" entirely "magic" unseen and provable process for that.

Does your brain explode because you need another process to drive a car instead of making love?

Wait a minute. Did I just write "brain"?

[Wowbagger]

Yeah, like I said, only the winners matter.True.
But, from the OP's point of view, all the life forms looking more alike would be the opposite of them speciating and becoming different.

We both know that different enviornments and survival strategies, among the population, would drive them into speciation, but sometimes it is "educational" to look at the world through the eyes of one who doth not even realize that much!

[Wowbagger]

Most of them will admit evolution is more than natural selection, but then at the same time say that evolution is basically non-random instead of a stochastic process, and will get angry if you call evolution random.

Go figure!Evolution is a bit more than jsut natural selection, but there is no random chance in it. The word "random" is often used to describe the fact that mutions occur "random" to whether or not they will benefit the life form, become detrimental to the life form, or neither.
I usually use the word "indifferent" to describe evolution, instead of "random", but that leads to its own set of semantical problems.

[Wowbagger]

If you mutate a gene, you replace one that was critical in the parent. Incidentally, this can be demonstrated false, quite easily. If one of the genes that expressed your eye color mutated, so you have differently colored eyes, would that "replace a critical gene in the parent"?

That is a very simple example, to start with, at least. Can anyone contribute one more fascinating?

[espritch]

I have noticed a pattern here where evolutionists try to use Natural Selection to qualify as evidence of emerging new species. But why? Could you pick a more contradictory process?

Sure. You could claim that there was an intelligent designer who, for instance, designed the incredibly complex human immune system and then designed malaria with a complex suit of traits and behaviors specifically suited to allow it to bypass the human immune system. That would be way more contradictory.


- Natural Selection destroys the gene pool. How can a process that is highly destructive be floated as a concept of creation of new species? That's like believing you can put a bomb around buildings and some buildings survived because they evolved into a new structure because of the blasts and therefore could withstand the blasts.

Luckily, the gene pool is constantly replenished by mutations. Evolution is not natural selection. It is natural selection in combination with mutation. Mutation provides the ever filling pool of variation that natural selection acts on.


- Natural Selection takes superior (variation wise) genetic information in a parents to produce a variation in the offspring that seems to be able to subjectively survive its environment, but it has less information in its DNA (as noted by inbreeding destroying the DNA the more it is done). Cut down the numbers, here comes the inbreeding.

Inbreeding doesn't destroy DNA. It just increases the chances that harmful recessive traits already existing in the gene pool will be matched and thus expressed.

Also, please define what you mean by information. Creationists are always blathering on about information but I have yet to see one actually define what they mean or how they measure it. Perhaps you would like to be the first?


- Natural Selection isolates information. How is reduction by isolation of DNA information, an opening to new possibilities? You simply can't get information blood out of a decaying DNA turnip. As we know from kennel clubs, you don't reintroduce original DNA the dogs become greatly deformed and eventually still born. Virtually every "pure" breed has some characteristic defect that appears because of the inbreeding. Too much DNA information gets destroyed.

Animal breeders tend to inbreed animals because they are trying to achieve particular results quickly and stringently select for the particular characteristics they are trying to preserve. Nature can afford to work changes at more gradual pace (it's had billions of years to work with as opposed to the 10 thousand or so human breeder have had), and thanks to mutation, it has a constant supply of new genetic material to work with.


- Even with the mythical and highly subjective "beneficial mutation" you still have a loss of information that contradicts the emergence of new. If you mutate a gene, you replace one that was critical in the parent. You don't create an new additional gene so the offspring has "more' variation options. You have less.

Beneficial mutations have been observed. A thing that has been observed is in no sense "mythical". Also, before declaring that a mutation is a loss of information, you need to define what you mean by information. A point mutation in an opsin gene can cause that opsin to be sensitive to a different part of the electromagnetic spectrum. In what way is this a loss of information?


When asked by IDers and creationists to produce some evidence of any kind, circumstantial or otherwise, all you get from evolutionary faith is a self-contradicting application of Natural Selection. Nothing visible, nothing plausible, nothing reasonable.

As already noted, this is a Creationist straw man. Please define information and explain how the frame shift mutation that created the nylon bug was a loss of information.


I know most evolutionists just follow the piper, I sure did when I was one, but is it appears to be more important for evolutionists to deflect the unthinkable (creation) than it is to make sense of concepts.

This is a rather insulting claim about a lot of intelligent, highly trained, professional scientists. It's also a load of horse manure.


I believe the perceived strength in numbers is the reason some cling to such a science contradicting faith. Why does anyone that is truly objective and demands reasonable arguments accept such not foundation-less, but also self-contradictory illogical claims ideas and put some kind of faith in it that would rival a Catholic's esteem for the pope? From destruction we get complexity? That's is non-sequitur.

No. Scientists accept evolution because it fits all available evidence better than any alternative. You calling evolution self-contradictory and illogical does not make it so.


And one more, if evolution uses such a dubious explanation, why would the not expect IDers and Creationists to be skeptical and to not demand evidence? After all, Natural Selection cannot be used to explained for abiogenises. You need "yet another" entirely "magic" unseen and provable process for that.

Relativity cannot be used to explain abiogenises either. Does that make Relativity false? Evolution answers the questions it was intended to answer. That is sufficient.


It is fascinating that what seem like at least reasonably intelligent people would be so out of character in their self-claims of "knowing" this happens.

They know it happens because it has been observed (unlike special creation).

[rittjc]

Do you 'believe in' natural selection when it comes to simple organisms like bacteria, or do you just think it doesn't work for animals?

Well a process is what it is. But I don't know what that has to do with anything. No bacteria has ever been show to exhibit information that was not already in standby in the parent's DNA.

As some point information has to be created. The mechanisms to do this are missing.

When dogs are bred, you find characteristics in the parents in which there is a finite but variable option that the critical information is already there. Let's say for a simple argument that a large dog with a good demeanor has a 1 in four chance of being a small dog according to the more advanced information not yet bred out of his DNA. You keep breeding that dog and you will eventually get a smaller one. Take smaller ones from other parents with the same probability, and do the same. You have bred dogs that can only be small. But you isolated preexisting information to get congruence. You didn't create a "short gene". It was already their in certain probabilities. You simple kept on until you got the combination you want. Then you can begin to do this by mixing the dog with a parent that has a "digging" characteristic. Eventually you have a specific breed but that new breed has none of the possibilities its ancestors did to produce a larger variation of possibilities. When the info is gone, it is imply gone.

So, while the appearance of what is called a "new species" is present, it is actually a far less capable species to go further.

So a destructive process is a terrible concept to use to sell a creative process. Evolution by Natural Selection is a tremendous mountain to climb when you have no legs or arms.

[rittjc]

Incidentally, this can be demonstrated false, quite easily. If one of the genes that expressed your eye color mutated, so you have differently colored eyes, would that "replace a critical gene in the parent"?

That is a very simple example, to start with, at least. Can anyone contribute one more fascinating?

Well their are a lot of contradictions to that. By replacing a gene, you are talking about an incredibly complex change in sequences of codons to produce the right amino acids, to produce the right proteins that produce the right cells that produce the right genes. That infers introducing a "complex" change of high order and lots of intelligence. You can't just tweak bits and expect a radical different sequence of complex components of the gene mentioned above. That too would have nothing to do with natural selection. Natural selection destroys possibilities.

Explaining this highly complex introduction of new precise DNA is almost as daunting as producing the complexity in the first place.

Also, you ignored the fact that you "replaced" the gene. You didn't add it. So you are suggesting that all the possible "new species" preexist and Natural Selection offers no explanation for that nor the exponentially diminishing variations and instances.

[rittjc]

Do you realize that this kind of stuff just shows you how boneheaded you are?



Does your brain explode because you need another process to drive a car instead of making love?

Wait a minute. Did I just write "brain"?

I have no time for infantile responses. You lack the ability to conduct intelligent discourse. I have no interest in your kind. Its time to grow up.

[rittjc]

The OP could correct me if I am wrong, but I think it was referring to the fact that natural selection kills off the varities that do not survive, and only keeps those that do, thus lots of "information" is being destroyed, and (according to the OP's arguments), life forms should look more and more alike.

Of course, the OP has yet to understand that there are opportunities for "new information" to emerge, and not just with single-point mutations; but all those examples I gave above, and others.

It doesn't help matters when the word "information" is being confused between its everyday sense, and its Information Theory sense. But, I have no time to give a lecture on Algorithmic Information Content (AIC), myself, right now.

Natural selection kills off the "weaker" so thats why the weaker never become stronger in another context. You wipe out the possibility of the others. In one context, one life form has a benefit over the other. But in other contexts, the opposite is true. So there was no "absolute better, no absolute winner or loser". There is simply the chance one benefits in the first context but in the second context they are both dead. It just depends on the situation you are in. To say the weaker in context one has nothing to add and must move out of the way, if the tables turn, the stronger becomes the weaker and dies whereas the one opportunistically killed of, would have survived.

You think in too much in absolutes.

[rittjc]

Could somebody please tell me what the semantics of 'destruction' of information is in the context of the genome?

Thanks.

(Because, you know, being precise about these things is inconvenient I know but might be a good goddamn start).

You should delve into DNA a bit. Genes come from the parents. They are not produced by osmosis or whatever conjectured mechanism your mind can drum up. If information from a gene comes from the parent, as we can prove over and over with things like eye color, blood type, etc, then the possibilities are no better in the offspring and usually less.

Take Male Pattern Baldness. It is passed from the mother to the daughter and manifests in her children. But if baldness is on the father's side it does not transfer to the daughter. Once, not in the daughter, her children, nor her daughter's children will deal with it. It was simply information eliminated. You can't call back information eliminated just because you need it to explain your philosophies of natural selection. Wishing does not bring it back.

[rittjc]

You certainly could.


Wrong.


Wrong.


Wrong.


Wrong.


Wrong.


Wrong. And how could you have been an evolutionist and know virtually no actual facts about it?


Wrong. Except for the double negative "not foundation-less".


Wrong.


Reasonably intelligent people actually investigate and study things before they make claims about their function. So, have you any comments about the experimental verifications of Special Relativity I linked to?

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong...you can't be serious or expect others to take you so.

[rittjc]

Only the winners matter.



Nope.

You make the first classic mistake - you mix up the design with the expression.


This this a semantic smoke screen? Something designs. Something expresses. You leave room for neither.



Inbreeding does not 'destroy' DNA - inbreeding increases the chances of harmful recessive genetic traits being expressed.


Harmful = destructive. You must be the semantic king. Try to use a bunch of philosophy words to distract from the point.


As to the whole 'more information is better' fallacy - would you decide what computer software to buy based on its size in Kb or would you perhaps base it on what it does?


Using software as an example pulls evolutionists shorts down around their ankles. Go in an randomly change bits (not with pre-written pre-designed replacement routines) but random flipping of bits from one to zero. You would see what you see in normal life. You would not get new improved functionality. You would crash very quickly and your program is lost.

You seem to have no clue about the difference between data and information. Stay away from software analogies, it is too much like DNA random destruction.


I can't even parse that.
Seek a new parser.



Nor that.

ditto



See previous on inbreeding. You don't know what the **** you are talking about. There's no 'destruction' going on here.

Ha ha...you can't be serious. Go to the AKC and ask them what happens when the keep the breed too pure. Only mutts tend to be healthy because DNA is reentered.


Even if that were always the case (it isn't) it is a fallacy that those who do not understand computation presume that more is better.

Math mathematically the longer you reduce, the less your remainder.


Well not your presentation of it anyway - but you have no real idea what you are talking about.

How is that an intelligent response? You say I don't have a real idea of what I am talking about with a conspicuous absence of counter argument to make such a case. I'll stick with an explanation instead of just an insult.


I understand the concepts plenty. You do not/

Oh, now you are brilliant and we simply for that in the absence of evidence. Looks like more faith just like evolution.





Ah, so evolution belief is an argument ad populum.

Which you wish to argue should be replaced with another one.

Er... no.


Well if the shoe fits...


You should be skeptical. First you should be skeptical of whatever ******** source it is you're getting this unbelievably poor characterisation of the mechanics of evolution from.

Then we can proceed like you give a **** about the truth.

I am skeptical. This is why I am tearing your pseudoscience religion apart with things everyone can understand. You want the appearance of truth to be in the arena of high-mindedness so you can convince everyone they need you to explain life. I am finally beginning to weather the hubris of people like you. I used to be astonished, but convinced that pride goes before the fall, you have your own ideas to fear. This is why you can't endure open and respectful debate. You use condescension to cover the fact you can't answer simple principles that everyone can understand. Are you afraid you will lose all value as a human if people find out you have been muddying the water with gibberish when truth lies in common sense? You are like a priest that says you must come to him for salvation. You try to falsely corner the market of truth.


But aren't you arguing we should believe in an entirely "magic" and unseen deity?
No, I am arguing that you already believe in magic and your deity is mother earth and your faith is evolution.


Well **** if all you've got to go on is whatever Creationist claptrap presentation of evolution then it's not surprising.

I used my own ideas here and they were too hot for you to handle. Bashing creationists is a clear sign your arguments are not only weak but that you know it too.

[Mojo]

Natural selection is evolution?


Nope: variation + natural selection is evolution. You missed a bit when constructing your strawman.

[Schneibster]

It thinks people can only keep one idea in their heads at once, because that's all its pointy little head can hold. Bad Mojo. Naughty Mojo. You're going to make its brain explode.

[Meadmaker]

Everyone is probably familiar with the analogy of the monkeys and typewriters typing out Shakespeare's plays. Of course, if one of the monkeys got lucky and typed, "Methinks it is like a weasel", he wouldn't know it, so you need an editor. The editor picks the bits that sound good.

So, who creates the information? The monkeys, or the editor? It's the editor that does it. Also, note that the editor doesn't have to be intelligent. As long as some pass the test, and others don't, the information content of the survivors will be greater.

Mutations (and similar phenomena like recombination) that lead to new forms of DNA are the monkeys. Natural selection is the editor. That is the sense in which natural selection creates information. Also, in the case of evolution (but not with the monkeys), once the editor finds something he likes, he makes lots of copies, and those become the starting point for the next round, so information is constantly added.

So, it's true that natural selection doesn't create new bits and pieces of life, but it does aid in the turning of random bits into information.

[Meadmaker]

your deity is mother earth

And a mighty fine deity she is, I say.

(Although, I prefer nature as a whole for a deity. Why restrict yourself to just one planet?)

[Meadmaker]

You should delve into DNA a bit. Genes come from the parents. They are not produced by osmosis or whatever conjectured mechanism your mind can drum up. If information from a gene comes from the parent, as we can prove over and over with things like eye color, blood type, etc, then the possibilities are no better in the offspring and usually less.

Surely you understand this isn't always the case? There is variation, and mutations do occur. You have talked about mutations as harmful. Regardless of whether or not that happens to be true in every case, those mutants did not come from their parents. They "just happened".

I'm a bit familiar with Huntington's Disease. Not long ago, they found the exact sequence of DNA that causes it. There's too many examples of one amino acid in the sequence, compared to the normal gene. From genetic and historical studies, scientists have concluded that its origin was with a single individual, probably a Portuguese sailor. (That last part's from memory. I saw it on the History Channel once. Could be wrong.)

So, that Portuguese sailor had a gene, but neither of his parents had that gene.

ETA: Wrong about Portuguese sailor. The sailor in question was the ancestor of a very large extended family in Venezuela, where there is a high concentration of the disease, but the sailor was not the original carrier.

[articulett]

Surely you understand this isn't always the case? There is variation, and mutations do occur. You have talked about mutations as harmful. Regardless of whether or not that happens to be true in every case, those mutants did not come from their parents. They "just happened".

I'm a bit familiar with Huntington's Disease. Not long ago, they found the exact sequence of DNA that causes it. There's too many examples of one amino acid in the sequence, compared to the normal gene. From genetic and historical studies, scientists have concluded that its origin was with a single individual, probably a Portuguese sailor. (That last part's from memory. I saw it on the History Channel once. Could be wrong.)

So, that Portuguese sailor had a gene, but neither of his parents had that gene.

Huntingtons is a run of triple repeats like Fragile X... it is more likely to "run" when passed from the father (symptoms show up earlier and worse).

But Huntingtons tend to show symptoms after a person has had children, so it can't be selected out except by prenatal diagnosis... a lot of people don't want to know if they themselves have it....much less their kids.

What more evidence do you need to show you that it's not the randomness that it's the problem... it's what sticks and multiplies over time. Nobody calls that random except those uninformed about natural selection. The problem really seems to be that YOU don't understand this. You don't understand how the randomness is the most useful obfuscation technique because you don't seem to understand or convey understanding about how the best mutations only have to happen once to spread through populations and guarantee their survival in future descendants?

Quit being stuck on the word random. Just go back and read cyborg. You truly are missing it. Rttjc is too dumb to understand... but you are not. Look at this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19733274

Don't you understand how the "new information" (mutation) was selected and multiplied through the population. Not Randomly. Male embryo survival necessitated that mutation in the future... and they pass that mutation on to the their sons... Don't you see? A thousand years from now there could be new species but they'll still carry that mutation because it was necessary in their ancestry... the parasite will evolve or die out as well. Don't confuse yourself and others by needing to call this random. Nobody with any credibility does because it confuses--it does not clarify. What more proof than T'ai, rttjc, and Behe do you need?

[Art Vandelay]

I have no time for infantile responses. You lack the ability to conduct intelligent discourse. I have no interest in your kind. Its time to grow up.You're the one posting idiotic arguments that bear no relation to reality. You have proven nothing but that you don't understand evolution.

Harmful = destructive. You must be the semantic king. Try to use a bunch of philosophy words to distract from the point.Except that "harmful" referred to the effect on the organism, while "destructive" referred to the effect on the gene pool. So you are therefore revealed to be a blatant liar, just like the vast majority of creationist apologists.

You seem to have no clue about the difference between data and information. You're the one playing equivocation games. According to you, information refers to variability when in comes to natural selection, but when dealing with the fact that mutations increase variability, suddenly information switches to the amount of data, without regard to variation. Typical creationist BS.

Seek a new parser.Arrogantly refusing to admit that you have trouble with the English language doesn't win you any points. For starters, when you say "How is reduction by isolation of DNA information, an opening to new possibilities?" the comma is superfluous. And you repeatedly fail to use hyphens, such as when you say "science contradicting faith" rather than "science-contradicting faith". Those two phrases mean completely different things.

This is why you can't endure open and respectful debate... Are you afraid you will lose all value as a human if people find out you have been muddying the water with gibberish when truth lies in common sense?Ah, so first you complain that we're not being polite enough for you, then you call us a bunch of lying a**holes.

Most of them will admit evolution is more than natural selection, but then at the same time say that evolution is basically non-random instead of a stochastic process, and will get angry if you call evolution random.

Go figure!If so (and I don't know of any examples), it's almost surely because they are tired of creationists manipulating the term "random".

Also, please define what you mean by information. Creationists are always blathering on about information but I have yet to see one actually define what they mean or how they measure it.Actually, creationists not only have a definition, they MORE than one, as can be seen in this thread. When discussing natural selection, information is the total number of different genes, and hence cannot be increased by natural selection. When discussing mutations, information is the number of genes, different or not, and hence mutation cannot increase information. Since neither natural selection nor mutation can increase information, evolution is false! "Information" means whatever is convenient at any particular point in the argument.

[Taffer]

Need I add my 0.2c? Does he have any substance to his argument?

Because skimming the OP there isn't.

[articulett]

Need I add my 0.2c? Does he have any substance to his argument?

Because skimming the OP there isn't.

No...he's Fred Phelps crazy and angry with the talking points of Hovind and Behe mashed together and mixed with a walloping dose of creationist arrogance/ignorance-- fortified by T'ai... and Rodney too, I think.

The Same ol' same ol'.

[PixyMisa]

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.

Wrong.
You missed a few. ;)

Let's go through the original post and highlight all the incorrect and misleading statements.

Natural selection is evolution?

I have noticed a pattern here where evolutionists try to use Natural Selection to qualify as evidence of emerging new species. But why? Could you pick a more contradictory process?

- Natural Selection destroys the gene pool. How can a process that is highly destructive be floated as a concept of creation of new species? That's like believing you can put a bomb around buildings and some buildings survived because they evolved into a new structure because of the blasts and therefore could withstand the blasts.

- Natural Selection takes superior (variation wise) genetic information in a parents to produce a variation in the offspring that seems to be able to subjectively survive its environment, but it has less information in its DNA (as noted by inbreeding destroying the DNA the more it is done). Cut down the numbers, here comes the inbreeding.

- Natural Selection isolates information. How is reduction by isolation of DNA information, an opening to new possibilities? You simply can't get information blood out of a decaying DNA turnip. As we know from kennel clubs, you don't reintroduce original DNA the dogs become greatly deformed and eventually still born. Virtually every "pure" breed has some characteristic defect that appears because of the inbreeding. Too much DNA information gets destroyed.

- Even with the mythical and highly subjective "beneficial mutation" you still have a loss of information that contradicts the emergence of new. If you mutate a gene, you replace one that was critical in the parent. You don't create an new additional gene so the offspring has "more' variation options. You have less.

When asked by IDers and creationists to produce some evidence of any kind, circumstantial or otherwise, all you get from evolutionary faith is a self-contradicting application of Natural Selection. Nothing visible, nothing plausible, nothing reasonable.

I know most evolutionists just follow the piper, I sure did when I was one, but is it appears to be more important for evolutionists to deflect the unthinkable (creation) than it is to make sense of concepts.

I believe the perceived strength in numbers is the reason some cling to such a science contradicting faith. Why does anyone that is truly objective and demands reasonable arguments accept such not foundation-less, but also self-contradictory illogical claims ideas and put some kind of faith in it that would rival a Catholic's esteem for the pope? From destruction we get complexity? That's is non-sequitur.

And one more, if evolution uses such a dubious explanation, why would the not expect IDers and Creationists to be skeptical and to not demand evidence? After all, Natural Selection cannot be used to explained for abiogenises. You need "yet another" entirely "magic" unseen and provable process for that.

It is fascinating that what seem like at least reasonably intelligent people would be so out of character in their self-claims of "knowing" this happens.

If we snip out the nonsense, we are left with:

But why? Virtually every "pure" breed has some characteristic defect that appears because of the inbreeding. That's [sic] is non-sequitur.

Though possibly a dog-breeder may argue the second point.

[CFLarsen]

Most of them will admit evolution is more than natural selection

Appeal to emotion.

There is nothing to "admit". Acknowledging that evolution is also about mutation, adaptation, gene flow, etc., is not a concession.

, but then at the same time say that evolution is basically non-random instead of a stochastic process, and will get angry if you call evolution random.

Misrepresenting opposing view.

Evolution isn't random. It isn't a random collection of atoms, somehow resulting in species, with humans as the end result.

Go figure!

What is it about Creationists that compel them to lie about Evolution?

[Taffer]

No...he's Fred Phelps crazy and angry with the talking points of Hovind and Behe mashed together and mixed with a walloping dose of creationist arrogance/ignorance-- fortified by T'ai... and Rodney too, I think.

The Same ol' same ol'.

Just what I suspected.

I like the new avatar, btw. Gave me a chuckle. :D

[articulett]

What is it about Creationists that compel them to lie about Evolution?


Their intelligent designer prefers 'em stupid and dishonest...

[fuelair]

I have noticed a pattern here where evolutionists try to use Natural Selection to qualify as evidence of emerging new species. But why? Could you pick a more contradictory process?

- Natural Selection destroys the gene pool. How can a process that is highly destructive be floated as a concept of creation of new species? That's like believing you can put a bomb around buildings and some buildings survived because they evolved into a new structure because of the blasts and therefore could withstand the blasts.

- Natural Selection takes superior (variation wise) genetic information in a parents to produce a variation in the offspring that seems to be able to subjectively survive its environment, but it has less information in its DNA (as noted by inbreeding destroying the DNA the more it is done). Cut down the numbers, here comes the inbreeding.

- Natural Selection isolates information. How is reduction by isolation of DNA information, an opening to new possibilities? You simply can't get information blood out of a decaying DNA turnip. As we know from kennel clubs, you don't reintroduce original DNA the dogs become greatly deformed and eventually still born. Virtually every "pure" breed has some characteristic defect that appears because of the inbreeding. Too much DNA information gets destroyed.

- Even with the mythical and highly subjective "beneficial mutation" you still have a loss of information that contradicts the emergence of new. If you mutate a gene, you replace one that was critical in the parent. You don't create an new additional gene so the offspring has "more' variation options. You have less.

When asked by IDers and creationists to produce some evidence of any kind, circumstantial or otherwise, all you get from evolutionary faith is a self-contradicting application of Natural Selection. Nothing visible, nothing plausible, nothing reasonable.

I know most evolutionists just follow the piper, I sure did when I was one, but is it appears to be more important for evolutionists to deflect the unthinkable (creation) than it is to make sense of concepts.

I believe the perceived strength in numbers is the reason some cling to such a science contradicting faith. Why does anyone that is truly objective and demands reasonable arguments accept such not foundation-less, but also self-contradictory illogical claims ideas and put some kind of faith in it that would rival a Catholic's esteem for the pope? From destruction we get complexity? That's is non-sequitur.

And one more, if evolution uses such a dubious explanation, why would the not expect IDers and Creationists to be skeptical and to not demand evidence? After all, Natural Selection cannot be used to explained for abiogenises. You need "yet another" entirely "magic" unseen and provable process for that.

It is fascinating that what seem like at least reasonably intelligent people would be so out of character in their self-claims of "knowing" this happens.
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :rolleyes:

[PixyMisa]

I think the one you want is :notm.

[cyborg]

This this a semantic smoke screen? Something designs. Something expresses. You leave room for neither.

Uh no. Through I doubt explaining the difference to you would be worth the effort.

Harmful = destructive. You must be the semantic king. Try to use a bunch of philosophy words to distract from the point.

Yeah... because actually defining what 'harmful' and 'destructive' actually mean as far as an actual formal and precise specification would mean you couldn't babble on in generalities without ever having to put up or shut up.

Using software as an example pulls evolutionists shorts down around their ankles.

And reveals a huge penis.

Go in an randomly change bits (not with pre-written pre-designed replacement routines) but random flipping of bits from one to zero. You would see what you see in normal life. You would not get new improved functionality. You would crash very quickly and your program is lost.

Sorry doofus - that is all rather dependant on the encoding one uses for bits. For example there is an esolang that encodes a valid program for each and every binary sequence.

What do you think of that doofus?

You seem to have no clue about the difference between data and information.

Oh then please inform me oh wise one.

Stay away from software analogies, it is too much like DNA random destruction.

What?

Seek a new parser.

How about you make some sense eh?

Ha ha...you can't be serious. Go to the AKC and ask them what happens when the keep the breed too pure. Only mutts tend to be healthy because DNA is reentered.

Uh... no. That's not how it works doofus.

Math mathematically the longer you reduce, the less your remainder.

Right - you don't understand a goddamn thing.

Got it.

How is that an intelligent response? You say I don't have a real idea of what I am talking about with a conspicuous absence of counter argument to make such a case.

Well you would think that of course but then you are presuming you are presenting rock-solid arguments when they are lame from the start.

I'll stick with an explanation instead of just an insult.

Yeah. Whatever.

Oh, now you are brilliant

That's right doofus. I'm brilliant and you are not.

and we simply for that in the absence of evidence. Looks like more faith just like evolution.

Hold up a sec... are you trying to tell me that faith is a bad thing?

Well if the shoe fits...

So you are spending your time arguing that faith in evolution is bad... therefore have faith in god!

Yay! That's perfectly sensible and not logically flawed in anyway!

PRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAISE JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEBUSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!1111oneONE! !!!111

I am skeptical.

Skeptical of gods much?

No? Didn't think so.

Go sit back down doofus - I ain't buying that.

This is why I am tearing your pseudoscience religion apart with things everyone can understand.

You might find it more effective if you used things that were true. And who the **** is this everyone you are referring to? Because so far you have come up with some pretty ****ed up nonsense.

You want the appearance of truth to be in the arena of high-mindedness so you can convince everyone they need you to explain life.

Yeah - what the **** does that mean exactly?

I am finally beginning to weather the hubris of people like you.

You go boy! PRAISE JEBUS! Face the adversity of the heathen and be rewarded with eternal life!

I used to be astonished, but convinced that pride goes before the fall, you have your own ideas to fear.

The irony here is funny.

This is why you can't endure open and respectful debate.

I can't endure it because you won't give it ****tard.

When you're ready to have a proper debate that will change. Until then you are my new plaything.

You use condescension to cover the fact you can't answer simple principles that everyone can understand.

No - I use facts to point out your faulty premises are wrong from the outset.

Are you afraid you will lose all value as a human if people find out you have been muddying the water with gibberish when truth lies in common sense?

If I were afraid of that then I would be pissing myself scared right now because you are quite adroit at spouting gibberish.

You are like a priest that says you must come to him for salvation. You try to falsely corner the market of truth.

Now, now we can't have that can we? That market is closed by GAWD ALMIGHTY - competitors will be burned alive.

No, I am arguing that you already believe in magic and your deity is mother earth and your faith is evolution.

And I'm arguing that you're projecting your own religiosity onto me because your small mind is unable to comprehend the world in any other way.

It is quite is pathetic and sad.

I used my own ideas here and they were too hot for you to handle.

Firstly I doubt that because they are hardly new ideas. (You are almost certainly a liar - most of your ilk are).
Secondly your ideas are **** mate. Sorry.

Bashing creationists is a clear sign your arguments are not only weak but that you know it too.

I know I am but what are you?

I'll know you're ready for a real debate when you admit you don't know ****.

[Dancing David]

I have noticed a pattern here where evolutionists try to use Natural Selection to qualify as evidence of emerging new species. But why? Could you pick a more contradictory process?

Post and run or will you come back?


- Natural Selection destroys the gene pool. How can a process that is highly destructive be floated as a concept of creation of new species? That's like believing you can put a bomb around buildings and some buildings survived because they evolved into a new structure because of the blasts and therefore could withstand the blasts.

How does it destroy the gene pool?


- Natural Selection takes superior (variation wise)

Only in traits that lead to greater reproductive success.

genetic information in a parents to produce a variation in the offspring that seems to be able to subjectively survive its environment

Not survive reproduce.

, but it has less information in its DNA (as noted by inbreeding destroying the DNA the more it is done). Cut down the numbers, here comes the inbreeding.

What natural selection leads to inbreeding, discuss further please.



- Natural Selection isolates information.

How now brown cow?

How is reduction by isolation of DNA information, an opening to new possibilities?

OOOK?

You simply can't get information blood out of a decaying DNA turnip. As we know from kennel clubs, you don't reintroduce original DNA the dogs become greatly deformed and eventually still born. Virtually every "pure" breed has some characteristic defect that appears because of the inbreeding. Too much DNA information gets destroyed.

So that is 'intelligent selection', how does it relate to natural selection.


- Even with the mythical and highly subjective "beneficial mutation" you still have a loss of information that contradicts the emergence of new. If you mutate a gene, you replace one that was critical in the parent. You don't create an new additional gene so the offspring has "more' variation options. You have less.


Reproductive success does not equal beneficial.

When asked by IDers and creationists to produce some evidence of any kind, circumstantial or otherwise, all you get from evolutionary faith is a self-contradicting application of Natural Selection. Nothing visible, nothing plausible, nothing reasonable.

How about the evolution of eohippus and sea shells?


I know most evolutionists just follow the piper, I sure did when I was one, but is it appears to be more important for evolutionists to deflect the unthinkable (creation) than it is to make sense of concepts.

So the fact that you were stupid proves what?



I believe the perceived strength in numbers is the reason some cling to such a science contradicting faith.

Evidence has nothing to do with it.

Why does anyone that is truly objective and demands reasonable arguments accept such not foundation-less, but also self-contradictory illogical claims ideas and put some kind of faith in it that would rival a Catholic's esteem for the pope? From destruction we get complexity? That's is non-sequitur.

And one more, if evolution uses such a dubious explanation, why would the not expect IDers and Creationists to be skeptical and to not demand evidence? After all, Natural Selection cannot be used to explained for abiogenises. You need "yet another" entirely "magic" unseen and provable process for that.

It is fascinating that what seem like at least reasonably intelligent people would be so out of character in their self-claims of "knowing" this happens.

Your essay is a D-, or a F+.(If you use spell check on it)

[Dancing David]

Natural selection kills off the "weaker" so thats why the weaker never become stronger in another context.

natural selection prefers those who have success at reproduction.

One of the proofs is that there are traits which are beneficial to reproduction but detrimental to the individual. It is not about 'survival of the fittest' it is about survival of the breeders.

You wipe out the possibility of the others. In one context, one life form has a benefit over the other.

Only in reproduction.

But in other contexts, the opposite is true. So there was no "absolute better, no absolute winner or loser". There is simply the chance one benefits in the first context but in the second context they are both dead. It just depends on the situation you are in. To say the weaker in context one has nothing to add and must move out of the way, if the tables turn, the stronger becomes the weaker and dies whereas the one opportunistically killed of, would have survived.

You think in too much in absolutes.
I believe you should meet Mr. Pot , Mr. Kettle.

[PixyMisa]

And reveals a huge penis.
Evolution. Is there nothing it can't do? ;)

[Paulhoff]

When dogs are bred,
Straw-man, breeding dogs is not Natural Selection.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Dr Adequate]

You should delve into DNA a bit. Genes come from the parents. They are not produced by osmosis or whatever conjectured mechanism your mind can drum up. If information from a gene comes from the parent, as we can prove over and over with things like eye color, blood type, etc, then the possibilities are no better in the offspring and usually less. Wrong (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/Parts-is-Parts.html).

Using software as an example pulls evolutionists shorts down around their ankles. Go in an randomly change bits (not with pre-written pre-designed replacement routines) but random flipping of bits from one to zero. You would see what you see in normal life. You would not get new improved functionality. You would crash very quickly and your program is lost. Wrong (http://www.greythumb.org/blog/index.php?/archives/10-Simulating-abiogenesis-with-Archis.html).

I am skeptical. This is why I am tearing your pseudoscience religion apart with things everyone can understand. You appear, in fact to be telling a bunch of silly lies about things which you don't understand.

I used my own ideas here and they were too hot for you to handle. Now, that was a very silly lie to tell, wasn't it? 'Cos we've all seen Creationists recite this mumbo-jumbo before, so we know that these aren't "your own ideas".

Bashing creationists is a clear sign your arguments are not only weak but that you know it too. Really? And what's bashing evolutionists a sign of?

And what's basing your case on a bunch of silly lies a sign of?

[Dr Adequate]

I have noticed a pattern here where evolutionists try to use Natural Selection to qualify as evidence of emerging new species. You cannot, of course, quote an "evolutionist" "trying to use Natural Selection to qualify as evidence of emerging new species", because this is a crazy lie which you made up in your head.

We do, however, use the observed emergence of new species (http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/No_New_Species_Have_Been_Observed) as evidence for the emergence of new species.

When asked by IDers and creationists to produce some evidence of any kind, circumstantial or otherwise, all you get from evolutionary faith is a self-contradicting application of Natural Selection. Everyone reading this thread can see that this is a lie. We've given you links to observations and experiments, whereas all you've done is recite unsubstantiated falsehoods.

Any time you want to produce a single piece of evidence for the crazy lies you've been reciting, feel free.

I know most evolutionists just follow the piper, I sure did when I was one ... You were an "evolutionist", but you never bothered to find out how evolution works?

That shows exactly the level of intellectual integrity I'd expect of you.

It is fascinating that what seem like at least reasonably intelligent people would be so out of character in their self-claims of "knowing" this happens. If you thought about it for a moment, you'd realise that the reason intelligent people disagree with you about a subject which they have studied and you have not is that they're right and you're wrong.

Let me introduce you to some of them.

Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Académie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).

Teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education: It sets up a false conflict between science and religion, misleads our youth about the nature of scientific inquiry, and thereby compromises our ability to respond to the problems of an increasingly technological world. Our capacity to cope with problems of food production, health care, and even national defense will be jeopardized if we deliberately strip our citizens of the power to distinguish between the phenomena of nature and supernatural articles of faith. "Creation-science" simply has no place in the public-school science classroom.

---Nobel Laureates Luis W. Alvarez, Carl D. Anderson, Christian B. Anfinsen, Julius Axelrod, David Baltimore, John Bardeen, Paul Berg, Hans A. Bethe, Konrad Bloch, Nicolaas Bloembergen, Michael S. Brown, Herbert C. Brown, Melvin Calvin, S. Chandrasekhar, Leon N. Cooper, Allan Cormack, Andre Cournand, Francis Crick, Renato Dulbecco, Leo Esaki, Val L. Fitch, William A. Fowler, Murray Gell-Mann, Ivar Giaever, Walter Gilbert, Donald A. Glaser, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Joseph L. Goldstein, Roger Guillemin, Roald Hoffmann, Robert Hofstadter, Robert W. Holley, David H. Hubel, Charles B. Huggins, H. Gobind Khorana, Arthur Kornberg, Polykarp Kusch, Willis E. Lamb, Jr., William Lipscomb, Salvador E. Luria, Barbara McClintock, Bruce Merrifield, Robert S. Mulliken, Daniel Nathans, Marshall Nirenberg, John H. Northrop, Severo Ochoa, George E. Palade, Linus Pauling, Arno A. Penzias, Edward M. Purcell, Isidor I. Rabi, Burton Richter, Frederick Robbins, J. Robert Schrieffer, Glenn T. Seaborg, Emilio Segre, Hamilton O. Smith, George D. Snell, Roger Sperry, Henry Taube, Howard M. Temin, Samuel C. C. Ting, Charles H. Townes, James D. Watson, Steven Weinberg, Thomas H. Weller, Eugene P. Wigner, Kenneth G. Wilson, Robert W. Wilson, Rosalyn Yalow, Chen Ning Yang.

Evolutionary theory ranks with Einstein's theory of relativity as one of modern science's most robust, generally accepted, thoroughly tested and broadly applicable concepts. From the standpoint of science, there is no controversy.

--- Louise Lamphere, President of the American Anthropological Association; Mary Pat Matheson, President of the American Assn of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta; Eugenie Scott, President of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists; Robert Milkey, Executive Officer of the American Astronomical Society; Barbara Joe Hoshiazaki, President of the American Fern Society; Oliver A. Ryder, President of the American Genetic Association; Larry Woodfork, President of the American Geological Institute; Marcia McNutt, President of the American Geophysical Union; Judith S. Weis, President of the American Institute of Biological Sciences; Arvind K.N. Nandedkar, President of the American Institute of Chemists; Robert H. Fakundiny, President of the American Institute of Professional Geologists; Hyman Bass, President of the American Mathematical Society; Ronald D. McPherson, Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society; John W. Fitzpatrick, President of the American Ornithologists' Union; George Trilling, President of the American Physical Society; Martin Frank, Executive Director of the American Physiological Society; Steven Slack, President of the American Phytopathological Society; Raymond D. Fowler, Chief Executive Officer American Psychological Association; Alan Kraut, Executive Director of the American Psychological Society; Catherine E. Rudder, Executive Director of the American Political Science Association; Robert D. Wells, President of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; Abigail Salyers, President of the American Society for Microbiology; Brooks Burr, President of the American Society of Ichthylogists & Herpetologists; Thomas H. Kunz, President of the American Society of Mammalogists; Mary Anne Holmes, President of the Association for Women Geoscientists; Linda H. Mantel, President of the Association for Women in Science; Ronald F. Abler, Executive Director of the Association of American Geographers; Vicki Cowart, President of the Association of American State Geologists; Nils Hasselmo, President of the Association of American Universities; Thomas A. Davis, President of the Assn. of College & University Biology Educators; Richard Jones, President of the Association of Earth Science Editors; Rex Upp, President of the Association of Engineering Geologists; Robert R. Haynes, President of the Association of Southeastern Biologists; Kenneth R. Ludwig, Director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center; Rodger Bybee, Executive Director of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study; Mary Dicky Barkley, President of the Biophysical Society; Judy Jernstedt, President of the Botanical Society of America; Ken Atkins, Secretary of the Burlington-Edison Cmte. for Science Education; Austin Dacey, Director of the Center for Inquiry Institute; Blair F. Jones, President of the Clay Minerals Society; Barbara Forrest, President of the Citizens for the Advancement of Science Education; Timothy Moy, President of the Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education; K. Elaine Hoagland, National Executive Officer Council on Undergraduate Research; David A. Sleper, President of the Crop Science Society of America; Steve Culver, President of the Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research; Pamela Matson, President of the Ecological Society of America; Larry L. Larson, President of the Entomological Society of America; Royce Engstrom, Chair of the Board of Directors of the EPSCoR Foundation; Robert R. Rich, President of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology; Stephen W. Porges, President of the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences; Roger D. Masters, President of the Foundation for Neuroscience and Society; Kevin S. Cummings, President of the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society; Sharon Mosher, President of the Geological Society of America; Dennis J. Richardson, President of the Helminthological Society of Washington; Aaron M. Bauer, President of the Herpetologists' League; William Perrotti, President of the Human Anatomy & Physiology Society; Lorna G. Moore, President of the Human Biology Association; Don Johanson, Director of the Institute of Human Origins; Harry McDonald, President of the Kansas Association of Biology Teachers; Steve Lopes, President of the Kansas Citizens For Science; Margaret W. Reynolds, Executive Director of the Linguistic Society of America; Robert T. Pennock, President of the Michigan Citizens for Science; Cornelis "Kase" Klein,President of the Mineralogical Society of America; Ann Lumsden, President of the National Association of Biology Teachers; Darryl Wilkins, President of the National Association for Black Geologists & Geophysicists; Steven C. Semken, President of the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; Kevin Padian, President of the National Center for Science Education; Tom Ervin, President of the National Earth Science Teachers Association; Gerald Wheeler, Executive Director of the National Science Teachers Association; Meredith Lane, President of the Natural Science Collections Alliance; Cathleen May, President of the Newkirk Engler & May Foundation; Dave Thomas, President of the New Mexicans for Science and Reason; Marshall Berman, President (elect) of the New Mexico Academy of Science; Connie J. Manson, President of the Northwest Geological Society; Lydia Villa-Komaroff, Vice Pres. for Research Northwestern University; Gary S. Hartshorn, President of the Organization for Tropical Studies; Warren Allmon, Director of the Paleontological Research Institution; Patricia Kelley, President of the Paleontological Society; Henry R. Owen, Director of Phi Sigma: The Biological Sciences Honor Society; Charles Yarish, President of the Phycological Society of America; Barbara J. Moore, President and CEO of Shape Up America!; Robert L. Kelly, President of the Society for American Archaeology; Richard Wilk, President of the Society for Economic Anthropology; Marvalee Wake, President of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology; Gilbert Strang, Past-Pres. & Science Policy Chair of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; Prasanta K. Mukhopadhyay, President of the Society for Organic Petrology; Howard E. Harper, Executive Director of the Society for Sedimentary Geology; Nick Barton, President of the Society for the Study of Evolution; Deborah Sacrey, President of the Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists; J.D. Hughes, President of the Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers; Lea K. Bleyman, President of the Society of Protozoologists; Elizabeth Kellogg, President of the Society of Systematic Biologists; David L. Eaton, President of the Society of Toxicology; Richard Stuckey, President of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology; Pat White, Executive Director of the Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education; Richard A. Anthes, President of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

Do you think that possibly they might know something about science that you don't?

[cyborg]

You were an "evolutionist", but you never bothered to find out how evolution works?

It's like he thinks we're all morons or something.

Because yeah if:

1) We realise, gasp!, he too was once an 'evolutionist'
2) He is no longer an 'evolutionist' because of 'common sense' arguments he definitely didn't crib off anyone else
3) We too must renounce the evils of evolutionary faith! Faith is dead! Long live faith!

Just how retarded do you think we are you lying sack of ****?

[g4macdad]

Only the winners matter.



Nope.

You make the first classic mistake - you mix up the design with the expression.



Inbreeding does not 'destroy' DNA - inbreeding increases the chances of harmful recessive genetic traits being expressed.

As to the whole 'more information is better' fallacy - would you decide what computer software to buy based on its size in Kb or would you perhaps base it on what it does?



I can't even parse that.



Nor that.



See previous on inbreeding. You don't know what the **** you are talking about. There's no 'destruction' going on here.



Eh?



Er, no.



Even if that were always the case (it isn't) it is a fallacy that those who do not understand computation presume that more is better.

It isn't.



Well not your presentation of it anyway - but you have no real idea what you are talking about.



I understand the concepts plenty. You do not/



Ah, so evolution belief is an argument ad populum.

Which you wish to argue should be replaced with another one.

Er... no.



It sure is the way you use the words.



You should be skeptical. First you should be skeptical of whatever ******** source it is you're getting this unbelievably poor characterisation of the mechanics of evolution from.

Then we can proceed like you give a **** about the truth.



Sure it can - but that's another game with different rules.



But aren't you arguing we should believe in an entirely "magic" and unseen deity?



Well **** if all you've got to go on is whatever Creationist claptrap presentation of evolution then it's not surprising.

Are you ready for reality now? May we begin by assuming you don't know ****?

This is the same bogus type of intellect you use in every post you make. Lots of cussing and intimidation, no real substance.

You make the classic mistake of assuming that whatever experts agree with your point of view can be the only ones that are legitimate. Not to mention all the other obvious flaws you have.

[g4macdad]

You cannot, of course, quote an "evolutionist" "trying to use Natural Selection to qualify as evidence of emerging new species", because this is a crazy lie which you made up in your head.

We do, however, use the observed emergence of new species (http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/No_New_Species_Have_Been_Observed) as evidence for the emergence of new species.

Everyone reading this thread can see that this is a lie. We've given you links to observations and experiments, whereas all you've done is recite unsubstantiated falsehoods.

Any time you want to produce a single piece of evidence for the crazy lies you've been reciting, feel free.

You were an "evolutionist", but you never bothered to find out how evolution works?

That shows exactly the level of intellectual integrity I'd expect of you.

If you thought about it for a moment, you'd realise that the reason intelligent people disagree with you about a subject which they have studied and you have not is that they're right and you're wrong.

Let me introduce you to some of them.

Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Académie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).

Teaching religious ideas mislabeled as science is detrimental to scientific education: It sets up a false conflict between science and religion, misleads our youth about the nature of scientific inquiry, and thereby compromises our ability to respond to the problems of an increasingly technological world. Our capacity to cope with problems of food production, health care, and even national defense will be jeopardized if we deliberately strip our citizens of the power to distinguish between the phenomena of nature and supernatural articles of faith. "Creation-science" simply has no place in the public-school science classroom.

---Nobel Laureates Luis W. Alvarez, Carl D. Anderson, Christian B. Anfinsen, Julius Axelrod, David Baltimore, John Bardeen, Paul Berg, Hans A. Bethe, Konrad Bloch, Nicolaas Bloembergen, Michael S. Brown, Herbert C. Brown, Melvin Calvin, S. Chandrasekhar, Leon N. Cooper, Allan Cormack, Andre Cournand, Francis Crick, Renato Dulbecco, Leo Esaki, Val L. Fitch, William A. Fowler, Murray Gell-Mann, Ivar Giaever, Walter Gilbert, Donald A. Glaser, Sheldon Lee Glashow, Joseph L. Goldstein, Roger Guillemin, Roald Hoffmann, Robert Hofstadter, Robert W. Holley, David H. Hubel, Charles B. Huggins, H. Gobind Khorana, Arthur Kornberg, Polykarp Kusch, Willis E. Lamb, Jr., William Lipscomb, Salvador E. Luria, Barbara McClintock, Bruce Merrifield, Robert S. Mulliken, Daniel Nathans, Marshall Nirenberg, John H. Northrop, Severo Ochoa, George E. Palade, Linus Pauling, Arno A. Penzias, Edward M. Purcell, Isidor I. Rabi, Burton Richter, Frederick Robbins, J. Robert Schrieffer, Glenn T. Seaborg, Emilio Segre, Hamilton O. Smith, George D. Snell, Roger Sperry, Henry Taube, Howard M. Temin, Samuel C. C. Ting, Charles H. Townes, James D. Watson, Steven Weinberg, Thomas H. Weller, Eugene P. Wigner, Kenneth G. Wilson, Robert W. Wilson, Rosalyn Yalow, Chen Ning Yang.

Evolutionary theory ranks with Einstein's theory of relativity as one of modern science's most robust, generally accepted, thoroughly tested and broadly applicable concepts. From the standpoint of science, there is no controversy.

--- Louise Lamphere, President of the American Anthropological Association; Mary Pat Matheson, President of the American Assn of Botanical Gardens and Arboreta; Eugenie Scott, President of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists; Robert Milkey, Executive Officer of the American Astronomical Society; Barbara Joe Hoshiazaki, President of the American Fern Society; Oliver A. Ryder, President of the American Genetic Association; Larry Woodfork, President of the American Geological Institute; Marcia McNutt, President of the American Geophysical Union; Judith S. Weis, President of the American Institute of Biological Sciences; Arvind K.N. Nandedkar, President of the American Institute of Chemists; Robert H. Fakundiny, President of the American Institute of Professional Geologists; Hyman Bass, President of the American Mathematical Society; Ronald D. McPherson, Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society; John W. Fitzpatrick, President of the American Ornithologists' Union; George Trilling, President of the American Physical Society; Martin Frank, Executive Director of the American Physiological Society; Steven Slack, President of the American Phytopathological Society; Raymond D. Fowler, Chief Executive Officer American Psychological Association; Alan Kraut, Executive Director of the American Psychological Society; Catherine E. Rudder, Executive Director of the American Political Science Association; Robert D. Wells, President of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology; Abigail Salyers, President of the American Society for Microbiology; Brooks Burr, President of the American Society of Ichthylogists & Herpetologists; Thomas H. Kunz, President of the American Society of Mammalogists; Mary Anne Holmes, President of the Association for Women Geoscientists; Linda H. Mantel, President of the Association for Women in Science; Ronald F. Abler, Executive Director of the Association of American Geographers; Vicki Cowart, President of the Association of American State Geologists; Nils Hasselmo, President of the Association of American Universities; Thomas A. Davis, President of the Assn. of College & University Biology Educators; Richard Jones, President of the Association of Earth Science Editors; Rex Upp, President of the Association of Engineering Geologists; Robert R. Haynes, President of the Association of Southeastern Biologists; Kenneth R. Ludwig, Director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center; Rodger Bybee, Executive Director of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study; Mary Dicky Barkley, President of the Biophysical Society; Judy Jernstedt, President of the Botanical Society of America; Ken Atkins, Secretary of the Burlington-Edison Cmte. for Science Education; Austin Dacey, Director of the Center for Inquiry Institute; Blair F. Jones, President of the Clay Minerals Society; Barbara Forrest, President of the Citizens for the Advancement of Science Education; Timothy Moy, President of the Coalition for Excellence in Science and Math Education; K. Elaine Hoagland, National Executive Officer Council on Undergraduate Research; David A. Sleper, President of the Crop Science Society of America; Steve Culver, President of the Cushman Foundation for Foraminiferal Research; Pamela Matson, President of the Ecological Society of America; Larry L. Larson, President of the Entomological Society of America; Royce Engstrom, Chair of the Board of Directors of the EPSCoR Foundation; Robert R. Rich, President of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology; Stephen W. Porges, President of the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences; Roger D. Masters, President of the Foundation for Neuroscience and Society; Kevin S. Cummings, President of the Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society; Sharon Mosher, President of the Geological Society of America; Dennis J. Richardson, President of the Helminthological Society of Washington; Aaron M. Bauer, President of the Herpetologists' League; William Perrotti, President of the Human Anatomy & Physiology Society; Lorna G. Moore, President of the Human Biology Association; Don Johanson, Director of the Institute of Human Origins; Harry McDonald, President of the Kansas Association of Biology Teachers; Steve Lopes, President of the Kansas Citizens For Science; Margaret W. Reynolds, Executive Director of the Linguistic Society of America; Robert T. Pennock, President of the Michigan Citizens for Science; Cornelis "Kase" Klein,President of the Mineralogical Society of America; Ann Lumsden, President of the National Association of Biology Teachers; Darryl Wilkins, President of the National Association for Black Geologists & Geophysicists; Steven C. Semken, President of the National Association of Geoscience Teachers; Kevin Padian, President of the National Center for Science Education; Tom Ervin, President of the National Earth Science Teachers Association; Gerald Wheeler, Executive Director of the National Science Teachers Association; Meredith Lane, President of the Natural Science Collections Alliance; Cathleen May, President of the Newkirk Engler & May Foundation; Dave Thomas, President of the New Mexicans for Science and Reason; Marshall Berman, President (elect) of the New Mexico Academy of Science; Connie J. Manson, President of the Northwest Geological Society; Lydia Villa-Komaroff, Vice Pres. for Research Northwestern University; Gary S. Hartshorn, President of the Organization for Tropical Studies; Warren Allmon, Director of the Paleontological Research Institution; Patricia Kelley, President of the Paleontological Society; Henry R. Owen, Director of Phi Sigma: The Biological Sciences Honor Society; Charles Yarish, President of the Phycological Society of America; Barbara J. Moore, President and CEO of Shape Up America!; Robert L. Kelly, President of the Society for American Archaeology; Richard Wilk, President of the Society for Economic Anthropology; Marvalee Wake, President of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology; Gilbert Strang, Past-Pres. & Science Policy Chair of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics; Prasanta K. Mukhopadhyay, President of the Society for Organic Petrology; Howard E. Harper, Executive Director of the Society for Sedimentary Geology; Nick Barton, President of the Society for the Study of Evolution; Deborah Sacrey, President of the Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists; J.D. Hughes, President of the Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers; Lea K. Bleyman, President of the Society of Protozoologists; Elizabeth Kellogg, President of the Society of Systematic Biologists; David L. Eaton, President of the Society of Toxicology; Richard Stuckey, President of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology; Pat White, Executive Director of the Triangle Coalition for Science and Technology Education; Richard A. Anthes, President of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research.

Do you think that possibly they might know something about science that you don't?

Everyone reading this thread can see that this is a lie. We've given you links to observations and experiments, whereas all you've done is recite unsubstantiated falsehoods.

Any time you want to produce a single piece of evidence for the crazy lies you've been reciting, feel free.


Your reply looks like pretty good evidence to me.;)

[cyborg]

This is the same bogus type of intellect you use in every post you make. Lots of cussing and intimidation, no real substance.

As I already pointed out g4macdad as soon as he's ready to stop lying and have a real debate it will occur. As to real substance there is plenty.

You make the classic mistake of assuming that whatever experts agree with your point of view can be the only ones that are legitimate.

Uh no. You see I actually understand the concepts that 'experts' talk about. I am more than able to formulate my own concepts and analyse the worth of an argument from its premises.

You are not of course so you presume I must be similarly disabled.

Not to mention all the other obvious flaws you have.

Like a crow-free diet.

You sure do enjoy being shown wrong time and time again don't you?

Now - do you have a question about natural selection?

[g4macdad]

As I already pointed out g4macdad as soon as he's ready to stop lying and have a real debate it will occur. As to real substance there is plenty.



Uh no. You see I actually understand the concepts that 'experts' talk about. I am more than able to formulate my own concepts and analyse the worth of an argument from its premises.

You are not of course so you presume I must be similarly disabled.



Like a crow-free diet.

You sure do enjoy being shown wrong time and time again don't you?

Now - do you have a question about natural selection?

Why would someone not enjoy being shown wrong?

I am glad I do not understand you however.

[Miss Anthrope]

This is the same bogus type of intellect you use in every post you make. Lots of cussing and intimidation, no real substance.

You make the classic mistake of assuming that whatever experts agree with your point of view can be the only ones that are legitimate. Not to mention all the other obvious flaws you have.

Pot, meet kettle.

While an appeal to authority can indeed be fallacious, when we're talking about science, let the science speak for itself.

[g4macdad]

Pot, meet kettle.

While an appeal to authority can indeed be fallacious, when we're talking about science, let the science speak for itself.

How is an appeal to scientific authority any different than say, a religious one, or any other?

Serious question BTW.

[Paulhoff]

How is an appeal to scientific authority any different than say, a religious one, or any other?

Serious question BTW.
Because unlike religion which goes on belief and not on testable evidence. Science is based on testable evidence and science will change when something new comes along that is testable and proven to be correct, like with Newton’s theory of gravity theory which has been replaced with Einstein’s theory on gravity because it explains things that Newton’s theory doesn’t.

Now do we have to tell you what the word theory means to a scientist?

Paul

:) :) :)

[cyborg]

I am glad I do not understand you however.

With all you don't understand you must be very glad indeed.

[Foster Zygote]

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong...you can't be serious or expect others to take you so.

The reason I keep asking you for comment on the experimental verifications of Special Relativity is to demonstrate your tendency to make bold claims about subjects of which you have little or no understanding. Your claims about evolution and natural selection are based not on your knowledge of these subjects, but rather on your ignorance of them.

So, do you have any comment on the experimental verifications of Special Relativity that I linked to? Will you acknowledge your own ignorance and use it as an opportunity to actually learn something, or will you ignore it and continue to only pretend to understand things, constructing straw men in place of ideas that currently confuse and threaten you?

[Foster Zygote]

It's like he thinks we're all morons or something.

Because yeah if:

1) We realise, gasp!, he too was once an 'evolutionist'
2) He is no longer an 'evolutionist' because of 'common sense' arguments he definitely didn't crib off anyone else
3) We too must renounce the evils of evolutionary faith! Faith is dead! Long live faith!

Just how retarded do you think we are you lying sack of ****?

Well, he tried to pass himself off as a professional scientist too.

[g4macdad]

Because unlike religion which goes on belief and not on testable evidence. Science is based on testable evidence and science will change when something new comes along that is testable and proven to be correct, like with Newton’s theory of gravity theory which has been replaced with Einstein’s theory on gravity because it explains things that Newton’s theory doesn’t.

Now do we have to tell you what the word theory means to a scientist?

Paul

:) :) :)

What evidence is there that you tested any scientific evidence, ever?

No we will not just take your word on it.

[Morrigan]

Isn't that the guy who thinks Einstein physics are bull because he apparently knows better than all the physicists in the world? Stop feeding the troll.

[Dr Adequate]

Your reply looks like pretty good evidence to me.;) But not for the crazy lies of creationists.

You got anything?

[CFLarsen]

Isn't that the guy who thinks Einstein physics are bull because he apparently knows better than all the physicists in the world? Stop feeding the troll.

Case in point:

The Crackpot Index (http://skepticreport.com/lighterside/crackpot.htm)
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics

[articulett]

Evolution. Is there nothing it can't do? ;)

I love Cyborg and his repartee with the inane, but I have to point out that a big part of evolution is sexual selection, and whilst a huge penis is one possibility, let's not forget that a cozy vagina decorated with a lovely vulva is another option when pulling pants down...

[articulett]

It's like he thinks we're all morons or something.

Because yeah if:

1) We realise, gasp!, he too was once an 'evolutionist'
2) He is no longer an 'evolutionist' because of 'common sense' arguments he definitely didn't crib off anyone else
3) We too must renounce the evils of evolutionary faith! Faith is dead! Long live faith!

Just how retarded do you think we are you lying sack of ****?

Nothing like lying for invisible sky buddy, eh...

I like the, "I used to be an atheist..." one too. And then it's usually followed by some old argument as if it had just sprung into the mind of the believer, "But, gee, did you ever think of the eye... " They don't even recognize that their snafus were once thought of by evolutionists... and then answered!

[Iamme]

Well their are a lot of contradictions to that. By replacing a gene, you are talking about an incredibly complex change in sequences of codons to produce the right amino acids, to produce the right proteins that produce the right cells that produce the right genes. That infers introducing a "complex" change of high order and lots of intelligence. You can't just tweak bits and expect a radical different sequence of complex components of the gene mentioned above. That too would have nothing to do with natural selection. Natural selection destroys possibilities.

Explaining this highly complex introduction of new precise DNA is almost as daunting as producing the complexity in the first place.

Also, you ignored the fact that you "replaced" the gene. You didn't add it. So you are suggesting that all the possible "new species" preexist and Natural Selection offers no explanation for that nor the exponentially diminishing variations and instances.

It's always nice to hear differing points of view on scientific matters that many believe is already a proven thing.

I am wondering if you have given any thought to why back millions of years ago, we had many creatures that were like the creatures of today, except they were giant sized, and now they are relatively pint sized. What happened?

[articulett]

(hey, don't interrupt... I want to see Iamme and rttjc have a discussion)

[rittjc]

Sure. You could claim that there was an intelligent designer who, for instance, designed the incredibly complex human immune system and then designed malaria with a complex suit of traits and behaviors specifically suited to allow it to bypass the human immune system. That would be way more contradictory.

You will get no traction here. Whether the designer created a destructive force or whether the free will organisms violated that began this entropic process, destruction cannot be seen as part of the process of creation. What creation does is completely separate than what process it took to make creation exist.


Luckily, the gene pool is constantly replenished by mutations. Evolution is not natural selection. It is natural selection in combination with mutation. Mutation provides the ever filling pool of variation that natural selection acts on.


Genetic mutation is destructive. To change a gene to be beneficial, you can't randomly change the condons an amino acid and get anything useful. The changes would have to be infinite. But I sit here and listed to the use of known variability to calculate the possible blood type, baldness, etc, in that of the offspring. Then comes the switcheroo con game of saying mutations are random. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Quit asking for free rides.


Inbreeding doesn't destroy DNA. It just increases the chances that harmful recessive traits already existing in the gene pool will be matched and thus expressed.
It most certainly does. The DNA is a full component of the being. If parts are missing the DNA is defective.

But note that you finally admit that the "defective" gene comes from the same preexisting genes in parent and therefore no genes are created. You have the same number in the child as the parent. This does not offer a path to where the "information" (genes) came from. There is no creative force, it is simply defective. Back to square one for evolution. Not to mention the free ride on abiogenesis.


Also, please define what you mean by information. Creationists are always blathering on about information but I have yet to see one actually define what they mean or how they measure it. Perhaps you would like to be the first?


Creationists are always doing this or doing that..blah blah. Creationists are intelligent humans just as you and have every right to question your religion as you have to question theirs. Just say "I hate God and I hate those that like Him and therefore will fraud my philosophies as science to keep them in their place" and get it over with. Bigotry is not become someone that thinks they have answers. If you have answers they would speak for themselves and wouldn't need you insulting their critics to hide the weaknesses of your answer.


Animal breeders tend to inbreed animals because they are trying to achieve particular results quickly and stringently select for the particular characteristics they are trying to preserve. Nature can afford to work changes at more gradual pace (it's had billions of years to work with as opposed to the 10 thousand or so human breeder have had), and thanks to mutation, it has a constant supply of new genetic material to work with.


Yes, you are right but you haven't got the slightest clue of the magnitude of what you said. They are aware the DNA of animals has the features already designed and ready to go for variation. So why the stupid idea that defects are what create that change? You speak out of both sides of your mouth.

They also know inbreeding is information destructive. You must reintroduce genes into the gene pool artificially or the dogs would become still born or have two heads or something freaky like that until there was not one left.


Beneficial mutations have been observed. A thing that has been observed is in no sense "mythical". Also, before declaring that a mutation is a loss of information, you need to define what you mean by information. A point mutation in an opsin gene can cause that opsin to be sensitive to a different part of the electromagnetic spectrum. In what way is this a loss of information?


Loss of information. The child's genes that "mutates" has less information to vary than the parent's. It has decreased potential. You keep forgetting that life is critical on the molecular level too and that genes are not simple black boxes that can turn into other black boxes if you simply change.

That's like saying I don't want Windows so I will take instances of Windows and keep inserting random bit changes until I get Linux. It is that preposterous but it does solve your religious demands.


As already noted, this is a Creationist straw man. Please define information and explain how the frame shift mutation that created the nylon bug was a loss of information.
Anytime a creationist points out the emperors new clothes of evolution, you call it a strawman argument.

There was a genetic lose on Nylonase because the parent can produce Nylonase AND other variations that Nylonase cannot. But the name Nylonase is a contrived name because "ONE" of the things it can consume is Nylon, a Dupont creation. That's another con game of evolutionary thinking. All bacteria destroy things. Streptococcus will eat, amongst other things skin, but you don't call it "Skinase". Why, because you are not so stupid to think it was "created" by some need to destroy skin anymore than Nylonase suddenly appeared because of the presence of Nylon.

You are dangerously close to the very definition of the shameful practice of pushing "Spontaneous Generation". This is the philosophy of the evolutionist. I am surprised that you are not challenging me with how then genes of exposed flesh mutates into flies.



This is a rather insulting claim about a lot of intelligent, highly trained, professional scientists. It's also a load of horse manure.


Thats what I say about your claims against scientists that are creationist. They are highly trained and professionals too.


No. Scientists accept evolution because it fits all available evidence better than any alternative. You calling evolution self-contradictory and illogical does not make it so.

No it doesn't but it doesn't make it false either. This is why people need to judge for themselves as you people should quit being so afraid of people being able to see a critical view at your religious pseudoscience.


Relativity cannot be used to explain abiogenises either. Does that make Relativity false? Evolution answers the questions it was intended to answer. That is sufficient.

Relativity does not address the organic life forms and portray itself as a mechanism of its advance by using claims of its destruction. It is not obligated to. Evolution is but never does.


They know it happens because it has been observed (unlike special creation).

Why do they hide this evidence if they can see it because they are constantly bombarded with requests to demonstrate it. They can't even agree amongst themselves. Your faith in men rivals that of a Catholic's faith in the Pope. You believe in men and you are set up for a fall.

[rittjc]

It's always nice to hear differing points of view on scientific matters that many believe is already a proven thing.

I am wondering if you have given any thought to why back millions of years ago, we had many creatures that were like the creatures of today, except they were giant sized, and now they are relatively pint sized. What happened?

Well, the average size of a dinosaur was that of a small dog. But keep in mind reptiles continue to grow as long as they live.

All the name Dinosaur means is "large lizard". Why are large Crocs, Alligators, Lizards, Komodo Dragons not called "dinosaurs"?

This is part of the marketing of evolution. It goes along with other dubious sales pitches of evolutionists like "Oort" clouds that killed off the Dinosaurs and saved all the mammals and other reptiles.

But lots of herbivores grow huge. The five largest animals are herbivores. The size of something doesn't mean anything. There are some pretty large komodo dragons and crocodiles.

Man tends to limit the population of animals on earth. This is part of his dominion over them. If a giant dinosaur stepped on a villagers he is probably going to be had for dinner by that village.

I find the "claims" of the earth being millions of years old to be dubious. There are aspects of science that seem to refute that. But I don't want to get into that on this thread because it would give the dubious evolutionist a tangent to go off on. If you wish you can post a new thread on "How old is the earth".

But, one last thing. You need to understand what causes fossilization. This will send the evolutionists scurrying like bugs when the lights are turned on.

Fossilization does not happen because something dies. It requires that something be buried under sediment like a flood sediment. When an animal dies, predators eat it, whether they are large predators or microbes. You have to stop this process. You can't bury it in the ground because the microbes can get to it there.

Most fossils are petrified. Petrification means it needs water to deliver minerals to harden it so it doesn't decay and retains it original shape.

Fossils are NOT formed over millions of years. This is why there are polystrate fossils that sort of demonstrate that the different "evolutionary" layers are were all formed at the same time instead of they mythical gazzilions of years between the fossils.

It's all part of the evolutionist's show. Get some popcorn and sit back and watch the next act. You can bet it will be a good one.

[cyborg]

All the name Dinosaur means is "large lizard".

1841, coined by Sir Richard Owen, from Gk. deinos "terrible" + sauros "lizard," of unknown origin. Fig. sense of "person or institution not adapting to change" is from 1952.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=dinosaur&searchmode=none

Why are large Crocs, Alligators, Lizards, Komodo Dragons not called "dinosaurs"?

Because wo