RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[Audie]

In order for Me to have a heart that beats -- I'm an alive person, my parents got together and my mother gave birth to me -- the 1st evidence that I was alive in her womb, was the heart beat that the Dr heard and then the first flutter of movement that I felt. So -- trace back How far ? to the first set of parents that gave birth to their children. The 1st heart beat ! but back Then there was no technowledgey available to Hear that 1st heartbeat of the tiny child in the womb.
Every person Does have a pulse rate, also.
Speaking a language is different than the 1st heart beat. A person has to be Alive in order To speak a language. Their heart would be beating.
There HAD to be a first heart to start beating -- because it would indicate a person who's alive. And it takes two people - a male and a female To produce a baby and that baby's heart started to beat Somehow. That spark of life. An example from the automotive world -- in order for a car to start, a battery is essential. The car has to be made by Someone -- designed by someone -- put together by someone and the battery made by someone. And to jump start a battery requires outside assistance from cables and people to attach those cables.
If someone tried to convince the world that a car simply Happened by Chance -- parts just somehow materialized out of materials that somehow just came together and over time all those parts just happened to fit together in just the right way -- and somehow everything works together so that the car started and drove and the same thing with all the other thousands of cars being driven today -- and the gas and oil and water and ignition starter -- all just happened -- ya know what the average person would say?! That Someone Is Nuts. After all -- what car starts out as a 'tiny part' and evolves from There and a car won't go Anywhere without the ignition being turned on.
If there's one thing I'm NOT it's a car mechanic -- but I've driven a variety of cars since I was 16. I know enough About cars to know they didn't evolve.

Sue, the purpose of an anaolgy as I use it, is to help you see an unfamiliar idea by providing a comparison to something that is familiar, not to provide a new topic inwhich details where thd analogy fails are analyzed.

Cars....mechanic or not, you can see how arguing the mechanic is wrong because he (nor anyone else)
cannot fully explain thd origin of petrol is just senseless.

Similarly, arguing againt ToE as it fails to provide an explanation for the origin of the universe. See?

Now as for first. Was there a first poodle? First Clydesdale horse?
I think we can agree the answer is no. First to speak English?
I doubt one could even say there was a first car. How about the first coal mine?

We have mines now, but was it the first mine when someone broke a piece off an exposed coal seam?

Did not mines evolve, "change over time ?

The data that goes into ToE points with complete consistency to the mammal heart we know today
having developed from much simpler forerunners. No first heart, no first beat.

That is the ToE "perspective", that is what the evidence shows.

And that, or God-poof, is the answer to your question.

[crochet1949]

Audie
Your comment back about the car -- I didn't say a person has to be able to explain the origin of petroleum --but those three ingredients Are required to have a car operating properly. A car needs water in the radiator or it will run dry and cause the engine to over-heat -- a big problem. And it needs oil and gas in order to run properly.
The human body requires a certain about of water to run properly as well as other nutrients to allow for the healthy operating of said body. A person CAN put all kinds of 'other stuff' in the body and end up developing problems.
Please let's Not miss the original point of the car example. The car needed a Designer and someone to put it together. It didn't do That on it's own.

Well -- How the universe Got here -- Might just have an impact on it's development since Getting here.

Well -- the origin Of the poodle? weren't poodles the result of inbreeding? The French poodle came from France?! There are large and small poodles. Or did breeders take other kinds of dogs and over time -- developed the 'poodle'?
There Are aspects that we Don't agree on.
There was the Model T? the 1st car. There was the horse and buggy before That. There was the 1st bicycle.

As for mining -- depends on What is being taken out of the ground / part of country you're in.
Mines develop because a Person or Group of people Do the planning of and executing Of said plan to change / improve that mine. Making is safer for people to extract materials needed. Some mines Have collapse and people Die or are rescued after being trapped.
A heart Has to work properly in any particular animal for said animal to Live. It Can't simply 'develop' over time.

[Audie]

neo wrote:
Life coming out of the abiogenesis idea is not really that strange to me either. I think it's very much probable and likely may have had happened that way. Once you allow the law of physics and chemistry and biology to have their way life would come out of it logically. Just like if you allow gravity alone, it would shape universes.

Neo,

Can you explain any evidence that shows me why you think it's likely that life on earth began by abiogenesis? I've searched on evidence for abiogenesis, and I'm only coming up with hypotheses, and speculation. Feel free to post a link.

At which point along the way from "random unguided godless blind" etc molecules
to life do you find most puzzling?

You of course do know that atoms do form molecules quite on their own,
and thatva great variety of organic molecules form, "self assemble" if you like,
under a wide variety of conditions.

Being of a steady sort, you'd also know that there is no bright line distinction bewteen life, and non living. Whether the one blurs into the other in a completely uninterrupted continuum,
who could say. My guess is they do; the vital force people would say otherwise.

Regardless, given the above and the rapidity with which reactions can take place,
is it not reasonable to think that anything that can happen will happen?

Like say a self replicating molecule that "feeds" on the complex organic material around it,
making of enormous numbers of identcal and not quite identical copies? Differences that let them do a littlebit different things..if you have any organic chem background, I dont need to give examples
like how this digestive enzyme can utilize sugar and that one cannot. ( no racial slurs about lactose intolerance will be tolerated!!!!!!)

Given millions of years and millions cubic miles of water, it looks possible to me.

I dont personally have much regard for the stats argument offered above with the scenario of vapourizing some bacteria to see if they reform when cooled off.

I wonder if the author of such thinks bacteria were the first / simplest life form,
or, for thst matter, that he thinks that he could disprove spontaneous generation of
NaCl crystals by vaporizing some, then triumphantly figgering that the odds of
every molecule going back just where it was is astronomical to zero.

Whstever the case, it is a dishonest argument, but I am probably preaching to the
choir pointing that out to you, neo, ir anyone else who has at least a touch of scuency thinking.

[RickD]

Audie,

I'm simply looking for evidence that life came from non-living matter. Neo is a very scientific minded person. And if he believes it's probable and likely that life arose from non-life, then I'm sure he was convinced by scientific evidence.

And to open up another can of worms, if we take Abiogenesis as defined, and it were proven to be true, it still doesn't necessarily mean that "God didn't do it".

[RickD]

Now I'm not so convinced that abiogenesis is NOT part of evolution.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... biogenesis

1The original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances:
to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago

According to anyone's idea of the ToE, is abiogenesis part of the ToE, or not?

[Audie]

Audie,

I'm simply looking for evidence that life came from non-living matter. Neo is a very scientific minded person. And if he believes it's probable and likely that life arose from non-life, then I'm sure he was convinced by scientific evidence.

And to open up another can of worms, if we take Abiogenesis as defined, and it were proven to be true, it still doesn't necessarily mean that "God didn't do it".

Didnt I just give some evidence, albeit in general terms?

And of course abio doesnt mean no-God.

It just means that some readings of the bible are wrong...as quarreling Christians
of their many sects sill surely agree is so!

[Audie]

Now I'm not so convinced that abiogenesis is NOT part of evolution.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... biogenesis

1The original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances:
to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago

According to anyone's idea of the ToE, is abiogenesis part of the ToE, or not?

Dudnt we just get thru with what EVERY scientist agrees on??? Sheeeesh.

[Audie]

Audie
Your comment back about the car -- I didn't say a person has to be able to explain the origin of petroleum --but those three ingredients Are required to have a car operating properly. A car needs water in the radiator or it will run dry and cause the engine to over-heat -- a big problem. And it needs oil and gas in order to run properly.
The human body requires a certain about of water to run properly as well as other nutrients to allow for the healthy operating of said body. A person CAN put all kinds of 'other stuff' in the body and end up developing problems.
Please let's Not miss the original point of the car example. The car needed a Designer and someone to put it together. It didn't do That on it's own.

Well -- How the universe Got here -- Might just have an impact on it's development since Getting here.

Well -- the origin Of the poodle? weren't poodles the result of inbreeding? The French poodle came from France?! There are large and small poodles. Or did breeders take other kinds of dogs and over time -- developed the 'poodle'?
There Are aspects that we Don't agree on.
There was the Model T? the 1st car. There was the horse and buggy before That. There was the 1st bicycle.

As for mining -- depends on What is being taken out of the ground / part of country you're in.
Mines develop because a Person or Group of people Do the planning of and executing Of said plan to change / improve that mine. Making is safer for people to extract materials needed. Some mines Have collapse and people Die or are rescued after being trapped.
A heart Has to work properly in any particular animal for said animal to Live. It Can't simply 'develop' over time.

C. , there was no first car, no first ooodle, no first bucycle, nor first of coal mine or English speaker.
Think about it.

Your own heart did in fact develop slowly from not much..a single cell thzt definitely had no heart.

You can choose to say God poof, as you like.

You asked, tho you seem disinc,ined to listen, how the "first heart"
came to be.

ToE provides an explanation, based on a very rich store of data, for how it
probably happened.

As I said, I can fill in an awful lot of details but that is the answer that I find most probable.

[RickD]

Interesting article about abiogenesis and evolution.
http://askjohnmackay.com/evolution-not- ... ens-after/

[RickD]

Audie,

I'm simply looking for evidence that life came from non-living matter. Neo is a very scientific minded person. And if he believes it's probable and likely that life arose from non-life, then I'm sure he was convinced by scientific evidence.

And to open up another can of worms, if we take Abiogenesis as defined, and it were proven to be true, it still doesn't necessarily mean that "God didn't do it".

Didnt I just give some evidence, albeit in general terms?

And of course abio doesnt mean no-God.

It just means that some readings of the bible are wrong...as quarreling Christians
of their many sects sill surely agree is so!

Audie,

Forgive me if I missed it, but I didn't see any evidence in your post, that shows that life came from non-life.

"If we have millions of years, anything can happen", is not evidence. It's just speculation.

I'm looking for scientific evidence that the original life on earth came from non-life. Show scientifically, how life came from non-life.

[Mazzy]

Preachin' to the choir with a gish?

Tsk.

That's the easy response, Audie! Try instead, what is far more difficult, to address the specific issues the links bring up - particularly the astronomical mathematical improbabilities - not based upon speculation, but upon KNOWN science, innumerable studies, and observable way processes have always consistently worked. ESPECIALLY key to address for anyone who believes that a non-intelligence and merely random, eternally existing things produced even the CONDITIONS that could make evolution possible - much less the actualities and processes.

Of course, those who would insist in THEISTIC evolution have challenges in Scripture - particularly IF they insist Adam and Eve were the results of evolutionary processes. And if they do, at LEAST they also insist upon God making what would otherwise be impossible, possible - that the serious, otherwise impossible gaps were glued together by His power and super intelligence.

Perhaps Audie should also read parts one and two, to "Evolution as Mythology":

http://www.reasons.org/articles/evoluti ... -is-a-myth

http://www.reasons.org/articles/evoluti ... fic-theory

Here's a little softball issue outtake from the article:

"As an example, cytochrome c, a small protein found throughout the biological realm, had to appear early in the evolutionary process. Yet information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated a probability of ~10-75 to generate it spontaneously from an amino acid-rich environment. To put this into perspective: a 10-75 chance is less likely than winning the Powerball lottery nine weeks in a row, buying only one ticket per week!

But it gets worse. Life is composed of many more-complex molecules than cytochrome c. Murray Eden of Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculated a probability of ~10-313 to spontaneously bring polypeptide sequences together into functional proteins. Simple self-sustaining life requires ~1,500-2,000 gene products, and Hoyle estimated a probability of ~10-40,000 to obtain 2,000 enzymes in a random trial. Physicist Harold Morowitz has calculated that if a large batch of bacteria in a sealed container is heated so every chemical bond is broken, then cooled slowly to allow the atoms to form new bonds and come to equilibrium, there is a probability of ~10-100,000,000,000 that a living bacterium will be present at the end.

How low a probability do mathematicians believe makes an event essentially impossible? Émile Borel has estimated 10-50; and William Dembski has calculated a lower limit of 10-150, based on the number of elementary particles in the universe and the age of the universe. Yet the probability of abiogenesis is far, far less than either figure!"

And this beauty of a quote - in defending abiogenesis, biologist Francis Crick acknowledged in 1981:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."

Was Crick just some isolated loonie with a correspondence course PhD? Nooooo! He was a British molecular biologist, biophysicist, and neuroscientist, Nobel Prize winner, and most noted for being a co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953."

So, to believe that EITHER exhaustive number of the necessary conditions and available chemistries, etc. would even have existed, certainly when one realizes the immense improbabilities of life springing forth unassisted, blindly/randomly - really, this takes either great faith in something so unreasonable to believe, and/or a complete denial of the improbabilities. Really, it's a faith in speculation that goes beyond reason. But that is where all non-theists find themselves, whether they admit it or not.

Postin' a gish aint what I'd call hard.

Here is hard: state one fact that is contrary to ToE.

Everything else is just preachin'.

I suggest any theory is only as good as the 'facts' it is built on. So let's start at the beginning, to find one fact that is contrary to hypothesis that amino acids and elements can undergo some sort of chemistry to form into a complex factory of reproduction.

Which hypothesis do you support? Organic soup, a little outdated these days, panspermia that shifts the same problem elsewhere; DNA first.. long dead, RNA first? Proteins first? So far RNA, DNA and proteins cannot survive long enough to evolve into anything. That is what many failed experiments looking to support the notion of molecules is actually demonstrating.

Let's take a look at how the TOE story plays out next. "Life" that is meant to be able to come into being, not only on earth but throughout the universe, actually only happened once here where earth has it all going for it eg Goldilocks positioning... That story would have been much more believable if there were multiple genesis and evidence of totally unrelated lines of life from multiple genesis. Didn't happen according to TOE supporters! One event, over billions of years kinda sounds like a miracle, even if one has faith in the bacteria to man hypothesis.

Of course a theory is only as good as the supporting facts.
Too obvious to need saying.

Here are some facts: ToE does not address the origin of life. No problem, serious or otherwise
with evolution or the theories (s) thereof has been identified in this thread.

Some more facts:
ToE is not about life elsewhere in the universe. It is not about faith.
And, it is not about "bacteria" -to-man. Or woman.

I repeat, ....Any theory is only as good as the foundation it is built on. No wonder evolutionists separate the miraculous out of the theory.

The fact is that TOE is about molecules to man as much as anything else while offering a theoretical explanation of how any species, including bacteria, can evolve into man or anything else.

Here is another fact, All the lab testing, all the research being done and what have we found.. FACT most mutations are deleterious, we've found negative epistasis with diminishing returns in relation to so called beneficial mutations, no success in even getting one lousy allele to fix in a population of drosophilia. I'd say the evidence is strongly suggesting that evolution occurring over billions of years is unlikely.

This link is about Negative epistasis
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1193

One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila showed that, if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms that have damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or marginally beneficial.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1871816/

This study demonstrated unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20844486

.....But let's ignore the observed evidence that at the least, strongly challenges the credibility of TOE, in favor of supporting a theory that rests on a miraculous foundation that it wants nothing to do with.....

[Audie]

That's the easy response, Audie! Try instead, what is far more difficult, to address the specific issues the links bring up - particularly the astronomical mathematical improbabilities - not based upon speculation, but upon KNOWN science, innumerable studies, and observable way processes have always consistently worked. ESPECIALLY key to address for anyone who believes that a non-intelligence and merely random, eternally existing things produced even the CONDITIONS that could make evolution possible - much less the actualities and processes.

Of course, those who would insist in THEISTIC evolution have challenges in Scripture - particularly IF they insist Adam and Eve were the results of evolutionary processes. And if they do, at LEAST they also insist upon God making what would otherwise be impossible, possible - that the serious, otherwise impossible gaps were glued together by His power and super intelligence.

Perhaps Audie should also read parts one and two, to "Evolution as Mythology":

http://www.reasons.org/articles/evoluti ... -is-a-myth

http://www.reasons.org/articles/evoluti ... fic-theory

Here's a little softball issue outtake from the article:

"As an example, cytochrome c, a small protein found throughout the biological realm, had to appear early in the evolutionary process. Yet information theorist Hubert Yockey calculated a probability of ~10-75 to generate it spontaneously from an amino acid-rich environment. To put this into perspective: a 10-75 chance is less likely than winning the Powerball lottery nine weeks in a row, buying only one ticket per week!

But it gets worse. Life is composed of many more-complex molecules than cytochrome c. Murray Eden of Massachusetts Institute of Technology calculated a probability of ~10-313 to spontaneously bring polypeptide sequences together into functional proteins. Simple self-sustaining life requires ~1,500-2,000 gene products, and Hoyle estimated a probability of ~10-40,000 to obtain 2,000 enzymes in a random trial. Physicist Harold Morowitz has calculated that if a large batch of bacteria in a sealed container is heated so every chemical bond is broken, then cooled slowly to allow the atoms to form new bonds and come to equilibrium, there is a probability of ~10-100,000,000,000 that a living bacterium will be present at the end.

How low a probability do mathematicians believe makes an event essentially impossible? Émile Borel has estimated 10-50; and William Dembski has calculated a lower limit of 10-150, based on the number of elementary particles in the universe and the age of the universe. Yet the probability of abiogenesis is far, far less than either figure!"

And this beauty of a quote - in defending abiogenesis, biologist Francis Crick acknowledged in 1981:

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."

Was Crick just some isolated loonie with a correspondence course PhD? Nooooo! He was a British molecular biologist, biophysicist, and neuroscientist, Nobel Prize winner, and most noted for being a co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953."

So, to believe that EITHER exhaustive number of the necessary conditions and available chemistries, etc. would even have existed, certainly when one realizes the immense improbabilities of life springing forth unassisted, blindly/randomly - really, this takes either great faith in something so unreasonable to believe, and/or a complete denial of the improbabilities. Really, it's a faith in speculation that goes beyond reason. But that is where all non-theists find themselves, whether they admit it or not.

Postin' a gish aint what I'd call hard.

Here is hard: state one fact that is contrary to ToE.

Everything else is just preachin'.

I suggest any theory is only as good as the 'facts' it is built on. So let's start at the beginning, to find one fact that is contrary to hypothesis that amino acids and elements can undergo some sort of chemistry to form into a complex factory of reproduction.

Which hypothesis do you support? Organic soup, a little outdated these days, panspermia that shifts the same problem elsewhere; DNA first.. long dead, RNA first? Proteins first? So far RNA, DNA and proteins cannot survive long enough to evolve into anything. That is what many failed experiments looking to support the notion of molecules is actually demonstrating.

Let's take a look at how the TOE story plays out next. "Life" that is meant to be able to come into being, not only on earth but throughout the universe, actually only happened once here where earth has it all going for it eg Goldilocks positioning... That story would have been much more believable if there were multiple genesis and evidence of totally unrelated lines of life from multiple genesis. Didn't happen according to TOE supporters! One event, over billions of years kinda sounds like a miracle, even if one has faith in the bacteria to man hypothesis.

Of course a theory is only as good as the supporting facts.
Too obvious to need saying.

Here are some facts: ToE does not address the origin of life. No problem, serious or otherwise
with evolution or the theories (s) thereof has been identified in this thread.

Some more facts:
ToE is not about life elsewhere in the universe. It is not about faith.
And, it is not about "bacteria" -to-man. Or woman.

I repeat, ....Any theory is only as good as the foundation it is built on. No wonder evolutionists separate the miraculous out of the theory.

The fact is that TOE is about molecules to man as much as anything else while offering a theoretical explanation of how any species, including bacteria, can evolve into man or anything else.

Here is another fact, All the lab testing, all the research being done and what have we found.. FACT most mutations are deleterious, we've found negative epistasis with diminishing returns in relation to so called beneficial mutations, no success in even getting one lousy allele to fix in a population of drosophilia. I'd say the evidence is strongly suggesting that evolution occurring over billions of years is unlikely.

This link is about Negative epistasis
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1193

One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila showed that, if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms that have damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or marginally beneficial.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1871816/

This study demonstrated unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20844486

.....But let's ignore the observed evidence that at the least, strongly challenges the credibility of TOE, in favor of supporting a theory that rests on a miraculous foundation that it wants nothing to do with.....

If your approach is going to be that "evolutionists" are by definition intellectually dishonest,
we are not going to have a productive discussion.

[Mazzy]

Postin' a gish aint what I'd call hard.

Here is hard: state one fact that is contrary to ToE.

Everything else is just preachin'.

I suggest any theory is only as good as the 'facts' it is built on. So let's start at the beginning, to find one fact that is contrary to hypothesis that amino acids and elements can undergo some sort of chemistry to form into a complex factory of reproduction.

Which hypothesis do you support? Organic soup, a little outdated these days, panspermia that shifts the same problem elsewhere; DNA first.. long dead, RNA first? Proteins first? So far RNA, DNA and proteins cannot survive long enough to evolve into anything. That is what many failed experiments looking to support the notion of molecules is actually demonstrating.

Let's take a look at how the TOE story plays out next. "Life" that is meant to be able to come into being, not only on earth but throughout the universe, actually only happened once here where earth has it all going for it eg Goldilocks positioning... That story would have been much more believable if there were multiple genesis and evidence of totally unrelated lines of life from multiple genesis. Didn't happen according to TOE supporters! One event, over billions of years kinda sounds like a miracle, even if one has faith in the bacteria to man hypothesis.

Of course a theory is only as good as the supporting facts.
Too obvious to need saying.

Here are some facts: ToE does not address the origin of life. No problem, serious or otherwise
with evolution or the theories (s) thereof has been identified in this thread.

Some more facts:
ToE is not about life elsewhere in the universe. It is not about faith.
And, it is not about "bacteria" -to-man. Or woman.

I repeat, ....Any theory is only as good as the foundation it is built on. No wonder evolutionists separate the miraculous out of the theory.

The fact is that TOE is about molecules to man as much as anything else while offering a theoretical explanation of how any species, including bacteria, can evolve into man or anything else.

Here is another fact, All the lab testing, all the research being done and what have we found.. FACT most mutations are deleterious, we've found negative epistasis with diminishing returns in relation to so called beneficial mutations, no success in even getting one lousy allele to fix in a population of drosophilia. I'd say the evidence is strongly suggesting that evolution occurring over billions of years is unlikely.

This link is about Negative epistasis
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1193

One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila showed that, if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms that have damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or marginally beneficial.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1871816/

This study demonstrated unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20844486

.....But let's ignore the observed evidence that at the least, strongly challenges the credibility of TOE, in favor of supporting a theory that rests on a miraculous foundation that it wants nothing to do with.....

If your approach is going to be that "evolutionists" are by definition intellectually dishonest,
we are not going to have a productive discussion.

I never said anyone was being intellectually dishonest. You requested something more than preaching, and I provided you with it.

I have presented research that highlights challenges to the idea of significant change above species level having any credibility. Of course there are always more and more tales and hypothesis as to why, despite all evidence, the TOE must pant on...

Here are the suggestions that are meant to save TOE from falsification in relation to the last research article that demonstrates after 600 generations of trying to fix one allele in a population they failed. Yet 'fixing' was meant to happen so readily, so often, for evolution to occur and changes to fix in any population.

"Signatures of selection are qualitatively different than what has been observed in asexual species; in our sexual populations, adaptation is not associated with 'classic' sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed. More parsimonious explanations include 'incomplete' sweep models, in which mutations have not had enough time to fix, and 'soft' sweep models, in which selection acts on pre-existing, common genetic variants. We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20844486

Hence if you are the one that can't come up with some 'factual' information in support of TOE, you must be the one preachin'. .. I don't mean to be offensive... Just saying.......

[Audie]

I suggest any theory is only as good as the 'facts' it is built on. So let's start at the beginning, to find one fact that is contrary to hypothesis that amino acids and elements can undergo some sort of chemistry to form into a complex factory of reproduction.

Which hypothesis do you support? Organic soup, a little outdated these days, panspermia that shifts the same problem elsewhere; DNA first.. long dead, RNA first? Proteins first? So far RNA, DNA and proteins cannot survive long enough to evolve into anything. That is what many failed experiments looking to support the notion of molecules is actually demonstrating.

Let's take a look at how the TOE story plays out next. "Life" that is meant to be able to come into being, not only on earth but throughout the universe, actually only happened once here where earth has it all going for it eg Goldilocks positioning... That story would have been much more believable if there were multiple genesis and evidence of totally unrelated lines of life from multiple genesis. Didn't happen according to TOE supporters! One event, over billions of years kinda sounds like a miracle, even if one has faith in the bacteria to man hypothesis.

Of course a theory is only as good as the supporting facts.
Too obvious to need saying.

Here are some facts: ToE does not address the origin of life. No problem, serious or otherwise
with evolution or the theories (s) thereof has been identified in this thread.

Some more facts:
ToE is not about life elsewhere in the universe. It is not about faith.
And, it is not about "bacteria" -to-man. Or woman.

I repeat, ....Any theory is only as good as the foundation it is built on. No wonder evolutionists separate the miraculous out of the theory. separate the miraculous out of the theory" separate the miraculous out of the theory"

The fact is that TOE is about molecules to man as much as anything else while offering a theoretical explanation of how any species, including bacteria, can evolve into man or anything else.

Here is another fact, All the lab testing, all the research being done and what have we found.. FACT most mutations are deleterious, we've found negative epistasis with diminishing returns in relation to so called beneficial mutations, no success in even getting one lousy allele to fix in a population of drosophilia. I'd say the evidence is strongly suggesting that evolution occurring over billions of years is unlikely.

This link is about Negative epistasis
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1193

One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila showed that, if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms that have damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or marginally beneficial.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1871816/

This study demonstrated unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20844486

.....But let's ignore the observed evidence that at the least, strongly challenges the credibility of TOE, in favor of supporting a theory that rests on a miraculous foundation that it wants nothing to do with.....

If your approach is going to be that "evolutionists" are by definition intellectually dishonest,
we are not going to have a productive discussion.

I never said anyone was being intellectually dishonest. You requested something more than preaching, and I provided you with it.

I have presented research that highlights challenges to the idea of significant change above species level having any credibility. Of course there are always more and more tales and hypothesis as to why, despite all evidence, the TOE must pant on...

Here are the suggestions that are meant to save TOE from falsification in relation to the last research article that demonstrates after 600 generations of trying to fix one allele in a population they failed. Yet 'fixing' was meant to happen so readily, so often, for evolution to occur and changes to fix in any population.

"Signatures of selection are qualitatively different than what has been observed in asexual species; in our sexual populations, adaptation is not associated with 'classic' sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed. More parsimonious explanations include 'incomplete' sweep models, in which mutations have not had enough time to fix, and 'soft' sweep models, in which selection acts on pre-existing, common genetic variants. We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20844486

Hence if you are the one that can't come up with some 'factual' information in support of TOE, you must be the one preachin'. .. I don't mean to be offensive... Just saying.......

"No wonder evolutionists separate the miraculous out of the theory" (pound)
"More and more tales..despite evidence..pant on".

Etc.


Those are snarky references to intellectual dishonesty.

Its just being disingenuous to deny the intent.

As for your purported contrary evidence, if it satisfies you, then it does.

If it does not-which is surely the case- impress the world scientific community or the Nobel committee, I dont stand alone in finding it irrelevant to the accuracy of ToE.

Why do you bother asking me for evidence for evolution? You dont know?

Or no, never mind. I dont want to discuss anyhting with you.

[Mazzy]

Of course a theory is only as good as the supporting facts.
Too obvious to need saying.

Here are some facts: ToE does not address the origin of life. No problem, serious or otherwise
with evolution or the theories (s) thereof has been identified in this thread.

Some more facts:
ToE is not about life elsewhere in the universe. It is not about faith.
And, it is not about "bacteria" -to-man. Or woman.

I repeat, ....Any theory is only as good as the foundation it is built on. No wonder evolutionists separate the miraculous out of the theory. separate the miraculous out of the theory" separate the miraculous out of the theory"

The fact is that TOE is about molecules to man as much as anything else while offering a theoretical explanation of how any species, including bacteria, can evolve into man or anything else.

Here is another fact, All the lab testing, all the research being done and what have we found.. FACT most mutations are deleterious, we've found negative epistasis with diminishing returns in relation to so called beneficial mutations, no success in even getting one lousy allele to fix in a population of drosophilia. I'd say the evidence is strongly suggesting that evolution occurring over billions of years is unlikely.

This link is about Negative epistasis
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1193

One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila showed that, if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms that have damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or marginally beneficial.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1871816/

This study demonstrated unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20844486

.....But let's ignore the observed evidence that at the least, strongly challenges the credibility of TOE, in favor of supporting a theory that rests on a miraculous foundation that it wants nothing to do with.....

If your approach is going to be that "evolutionists" are by definition intellectually dishonest,
we are not going to have a productive discussion.

I never said anyone was being intellectually dishonest. You requested something more than preaching, and I provided you with it.

I have presented research that highlights challenges to the idea of significant change above species level having any credibility. Of course there are always more and more tales and hypothesis as to why, despite all evidence, the TOE must pant on...

Here are the suggestions that are meant to save TOE from falsification in relation to the last research article that demonstrates after 600 generations of trying to fix one allele in a population they failed. Yet 'fixing' was meant to happen so readily, so often, for evolution to occur and changes to fix in any population.

"Signatures of selection are qualitatively different than what has been observed in asexual species; in our sexual populations, adaptation is not associated with 'classic' sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed. More parsimonious explanations include 'incomplete' sweep models, in which mutations have not had enough time to fix, and 'soft' sweep models, in which selection acts on pre-existing, common genetic variants. We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20844486

Hence if you are the one that can't come up with some 'factual' information in support of TOE, you must be the one preachin'. .. I don't mean to be offensive... Just saying.......

"No wonder evolutionists separate the miraculous out of the theory" (pound)
"More and more tales..despite evidence..pant on".

Etc.


Those are snarky references to intellectual dishonesty.

Its just being disingenuous to deny the intent.

As for your purported contrary evidence, if it satisfies you, then it does.

If it does not-which is surely the case- impress the world scientific community or the Nobel committee, I dont stand alone in finding it irrelevant to the accuracy of ToE.

Why do you bother asking me for evidence for evolution? You dont know?

Or no, never mind. I dont want to discuss anyhting with you.

I suppose suggesting someone is 'just preaching' is not being snarky. However, I will apologize if a little bit of attitude is so confronting to you. Some people can give attitude, but not take it.

Ok, creationists can take the win. If "they said so" was actually a valid response, there would be no need for debate about anything. You can play precious, instead of offering a credible and scientific response in support of your position!