Flaws in Evolution

[Jbuza]

By definition the gene pool consists of all individuals who are sexually compatible.


By definition of sexual reproduction no individual has the gene pool at their disposal when recombining DNA
-------
This covers existing traits but where do the new traits come from?


What new traits?
-------
And unless something in nature is unbalanced such as weather changes introduction of new species or disease or some other catastrophe; nature is at an equilibrium. During these stable periods the subtle selection of nature allows for a large and sustainable gene pool. Like a forest that's been there for thousands of years.
What we mean by sustainable gene pool is a population has enough variability to survive stressing circumstances.


Nope I don't believe this is observed. Your viral example isn't an observation.
-------
No, once a population has been submitted to selection it is no longer stressful because the population which remains is a result of the weeding out of unfavorable traits.
Like a farm in which the breeding has created a stable population of domesticated animals, the population is now stable.


So we don't see evolution because there are no stressful conditions. Ask the mouse if it will grow wings and fly from the cat.
--------
Like I stated adaptation involves the new environment weeding out those individuals which are less able to cope with the stress. Those who survive now have a distinct gene pool. A sub set of the original population. Further isolation causes divergence due to the fact that mutations only effect the gene pool in which they occur.


Yes I get it already, your theory is true because the reproductively successful are able to reproduce and those who cannot reproduce don't. Lots of words, no evidence.
-----------

[BGoodForGoodSake]

By definition the gene pool consists of all individuals who are sexually compatible.


By definition of sexual reproduction no individual has the gene pool at their disposal when recombining DNA

When you talk of introducing individuals who are sexually compatible this doesn't limit the gene pool to just the parents. Are you or are you not allowing others to breed with your population?
-------

This covers existing traits but where do the new traits come from?
What new traits?

Are you saying that all mutations are harmful?
Are you saying that all traits in domesticated animals are present in the wild?

-------

And unless something in nature is unbalanced such as weather changes introduction of new species or disease or some other catastrophe; nature is at an equilibrium. During these stable periods the subtle selection of nature allows for a large and sustainable gene pool. Like a forest that's been there for thousands of years.
What we mean by sustainable gene pool is a population has enough variability to survive stressing circumstances.

Nope I don't believe this is observed. Your viral example isn't an observation.

How about bacterial resistance to antibiotics, is this a good example?
At first a bacterial population is wiped out, however on rare occations some bacteria prove to be resistant. The resulting population consists of primarily bacteria with this trait.
-------

No, once a population has been submitted to selection it is no longer stressful because the population which remains is a result of the weeding out of unfavorable traits.
Like a farm in which the breeding has created a stable population of domesticated animals, the population is now stable.

So we don't see evolution because there are no stressful conditions.

No as I stated earlier the selection is more subtle allowing traits to accumulate within a population within the limitations of the selective forces.

Ask the mouse if it will grow wings and fly from the cat.

I thought we went over this, this is a distorted view of evolution. Evolution does not propose this.
Do you have to resort to attacking your twisted version of evolution???
Or would you rather discuss the real issues?
It's your choice.
--------

Like I stated adaptation involves the new environment weeding out those individuals which are less able to cope with the stress. Those who survive now have a distinct gene pool. A sub set of the original population. Further isolation causes divergence due to the fact that mutations only effect the gene pool in which they occur.

Yes I get it already, your theory is true because the reproductively successful are able to reproduce and those who cannot reproduce don't. Lots of words, no evidence.
-----------

Hmm, those who survived the bubonic plague, do you think it is because they were resistant or because they were lucky?
Also afterwards do you think the proportion of resistant people was higher or lower?
It seems to be common sense.

It is what you do when breeding chickens is it not?

I think we are getting to that point again my friend. You can have the final words and we'll put this discussion to rest.

[aa118816]

You responses have been very enlightening because it shows how twisted, weak and contorted your worldview is.

Your statement that all fossils are evidence for transitional forms because we are all transitional forms not only begs the question, but is unscientific. There is not one piece of evidence for a transitional form successfully moving from one body phyla to another. You just need to have faith in your religion of scientism to make the fossils work to support your worldview. Your theory of transition is untestable.

I have little to add to the refutations of your post except to officially label you and evotheist.

Dan

[Jbuza]

Bgood Wrote
You can have the final words and we'll put this discussion to rest.

OK. However, since you didn't know what I was going to write, respond if you like.
---------
Jbuza Wrote
Ask the mouse if it will grow wings and fly from the cat.
Bgood Wrote
I thought we went over this, this is a distorted view of evolution. Evolution does not propose this.
Do you have to resort to attacking your twisted version of evolution???
Or would you rather discuss the real issues?
It's your choice.


Evolution proposes that all creatures are in common descent from single celled organisms, so I think the example is quite pertinent to the discussion because somewhere along the lines something had to have grown wings. Your dismissing of my example and saying it is a twisting of evolution to propose that evolution suggest the possibility of a mouse growing wings, shows that you understand just how absurd evolution really is. Since you admit it is absurd, and know the follies of the theory of evolution, why do you still defend it.

The real issue is that we do not observe the kind of evolution that is necessary to create the variety we see. Since it goes contrary to observations it is by definition not science. Hang onto your worldview and hide in the unseen, imaginary past if you wish, but all I can deal with is what we observe, and we do not observe evolution creating more variety. History shows extinction. These are facts. What you claim is empty air. This thread is for Flaws in Evolution and since you have been a clear defender throughout this thread it seems that you believe evolution the be all and end all without flaw.

[Zenith]

You complain that the theory of evolution is just theory and has no evidential support, and yet you advocate a belief that has even less evidence than evolution. In one sentence (the last) you blatantly contradict yourself

No, I wouldn't call evolution a theory. And my view has no evidence? Really? The fossil record genius. The information in DNA. Irreducibly complex systems. My goodness. Evidence for evolution though?

again, you are only using the same logic as evolutionists. i am not an evolutionist, i just see some truth in the logic. a lot of what they say is hasty interpretation. you say that dna and organisms are too complex to have developed on their own, but what basis are you judging this upon, what constant do you have to compare to? your claims are just as unsubstantiated as the evolutionists you so despise. evolution has no evidence only because you don't see it as evidence. just like you say you have evidence only because you see it as evidence. it is the interpretation that makes it support the idea here, not the evidence itself. that is not what evidence is.

i ask you again, what is your view on this subject?

But those systems are put together from already developed systems. Humans only take what occurs naturally, and change the form into something else, they are making nothing, only reforming and recombining.

Nonsense once again.

so everything you don't agree with is automatically nonsense. now i see why you are so ignorant to how the real world works. ever hear of the law of conservation of energy? everthing in the universe is already here, there is no creation, only recombination.

I am saying that our only knowledge of any of God's work are the everyday observations of nature. We can only know God by observing how the universe acts because God created the universe. The only intelligence we know is us. And the term intelligence was created by us, so it only has meaning to us. My definition of intelligence would be an increasing complex system that allows feedback on itself. The human mind lets the world look back on itself, and act in a way other than fundamental force.

You are ignoring the special revelation. And I really don't see what you're trying to prove by saying man made the word intelligence.

spirituality may not be physical, but it affects the physical world, and it affects the way i view it. it becomes physical in that process. it becomes a cause to an infinite number of effects.

man made the word 'intelligence' to describe an attribute of something. but this attribute is completely subjective. the word intelligence means something [slightly] different to everyone. i am saying that we really have no idea what intelligence is, we are merely defining intelligence by what we label it with.

This is why you disagree with evolution. Because you do not understand it.

Yes yes yes, just ignorance, that's my only problem. Not real problems, of course not. It's all in my head. You twit.

i do not understand the intricacies of god or whatever clues of himself he might have left behind. i am ignorant of that subject. i am not afraid to reveal my ignorance in the hope that someone might correct me. calling someone a twit for trying to show you something is a bit unproductive. your posts show that you are arguing against something that you know little about. you read articles that are against evolution without ever thinking that you should maybe read the other side of the story to compare it to.

Evolution proposes that all creatures are in common descent from single celled organisms, so I think the example is quite pertinent to the discussion because somewhere along the lines something had to have grown wings. Your dismissing of my example and saying it is a twisting of evolution to propose that evolution suggest the possibility of a mouse growing wings, shows that you understand just how absurd evolution really is. Since you admit it is absurd, and know the follies of the theory of evolution, why do you still defend it.

no, the example is an exaggerated oversimplification. a mouse will not simply grow wings. a mouse might have offspring which have skin between their legs and body that help them glide over long jumps. then the next generation might have more skin there. then next might have longer legs (and more skin). and the next might have more, and on and on until something that looks like wings develop. that process would probably take thousand if not millions of years to occur.

The real issue is that we do not observe the kind of evolution that is necessary to create the variety we see. Since it goes contrary to observations it is by definition not science. Hang onto your worldview and hide in the unseen, imaginary past if you wish, but all I can deal with is what we observe, and we do not observe evolution creating more variety. History shows extinction. These are facts. What you claim is empty air. This thread is for Flaws in Evolution and since you have been a clear defender throughout this thread it seems that you believe evolution the be all and end all without flaw.

there is plenty of evidence contrary to individuals' work in the theory of evolution, but the base theory remains unscathed. there is no evidence disproving the idea that all organisms on this evolved from the same ancestor. there is no evidence proving it either, but there never will be. the debate is similar to that of "does god exist" in that if both arguments are false we will never know. personally, i base my idea of god on the obseravations of nature i see everyday.

the only thing evolution creates is diversity. it is a force that recombines already present chemicals and structures into complex forms for the sole reason of survival (along with god's ultimate plan). extinction is merely a necessary process of the whole thing. thriving species will overtake a habitat or food source, pushing other species out, causing them to die off. this is the cause of evolution in the first place. organisms die and the only ones that survive are the ones that are adapted to their environment. to me, this supports the existence of god because he is the force behind evolution.

[Jbuza]

hahahahaha lol

So the mouse is going to have a mutation just incase future generations could find it helpful in case they grow wings. This is funny. I think I have less respect for evolution now then before, thanks.


Actually evolution requires one to accept origins that run contrary to observations. We do not observe adaptation we observe extinction. I guess you would rather give credit to supposed mechanisms than to God. Things did not evolve God created, and he deserves the Glory and the Honor for all the marvelous things we observe. If you want to delude yourself and give glory to nothing, that is oyur business, but it is not science, because it runs contrary to the empirical evidence. Science, falsly so called. What a crock!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[thereal]

So the mouse is going to have a mutation just incase future generations could find it helpful in case they grow wings. This is funny. I think I have less respect for evolution now then before, thanks.

Selection does not act upon what may traits may be beneficial in the future, only what is beneficial now. If the initial mutation that resulted in an additional "flap" of skin was beneficial, then it would be retained in the population. Retention of mutations does not occur because an "end product" such as wings are beneficial...each morphological "step" in the process must be beneficial and thus retained for it to persist.

[Jbuza]

So the mouse is going to have a mutation just incase future generations could find it helpful in case they grow wings. This is funny. I think I have less respect for evolution now then before, thanks.

Selection does not act upon what may traits may be beneficial in the future, only what is beneficial now. If the initial mutation that resulted in an additional "flap" of skin was beneficial, then it would be retained in the population. Retention of mutations does not occur because an "end product" such as wings are beneficial...each morphological "step" in the process must be beneficial and thus retained for it to persist.

Evidence?

I know that is how evolution would like things to work, but we don't observe this, and since it is contrary to observations it isn't science.

[Zenith]

hahahahaha lol

So the mouse is going to have a mutation just incase future generations could find it helpful in case they grow wings. This is funny. I think I have less respect for evolution now then before, thanks.


Actually evolution requires one to accept origins that run contrary to observations. We do not observe adaptation we observe extinction. I guess you would rather give credit to supposed mechanisms than to God. Things did not evolve God created, and he deserves the Glory and the Honor for all the marvelous things we observe. If you want to delude yourself and give glory to nothing, that is oyur business, but it is not science, because it runs contrary to the empirical evidence. Science, falsly so called. What a crock!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

as thereal said, evolution does not work that way. the observations only contradict your version of evolution. mutations and recombinations happen in every new organism born. they are why every person looks different. they cause very slight differences. sometimes they cause more noticeable differences. in the case of the mouse growing flaps. that could be a small change in the order of DNA that caused more skin to grow between the legs. this is beneficial to the organism because the mouse (or whatever) can jump and glide from things away from predators.

Evidence?

I know that is how evolution would like things to work, but we don't observe this, and since it is contrary to observations it isn't science.

flying squirrel? a squirrel is very similar to a mouse, they would have comon ancestors not too far back. one species of squirrel developed flaps of skin between its legs just as i have been talking about. it climbs trees and can jump from tree to tree, gliding through the air. a close relative and similarly shaped like a squirrel or mouse, the bat has larger flaps of skin between its elongated fingers and arms so that it can fly. i am not attributing this to random coincidences in mutations of dna or anything like most evolutionists say. i am saying that these changes in the dna are how god diversifies life after he has created it.

[Mystical]

Joining again after a long time!

BGood:

The environment and other pressures would cause most of them to perish.

This statement has nothing to do with your statement that the development of life is not random and my subsequent statement that if it is not random, then it must be guided.

The effect that this change has on a population is not.

Sure it is.

Perhaps some of the larger deer would be able to outrun predators.

Something must occur to account for the white fur of a snow leopard.
(Snow leopards can cross breed with jaguars.)

None of this has anything to do with the fact that it is an impossibility that life (and the universe) developed randomly. In fact, it doesn't really have to do with anything of any consequence.

p.s. If the flying squirrel picture was on this thread, my answer is still "no."

[Mystical]

Yehren:

I've discussed a good number of them here.

At the time of our conversation: Not on this thread you haven't.

People may take them for what they are worth. Why do you believe your opinions or thoughts are of any consequence?

Your opinions/thoughts are of no consequence in the exchange of words that you and I are having right now. The reason for this is because you continue to discuss issues irrelevant to the topic at hand. Also, you continue to attempt to discredit information based on your opinions of the source. That is a logical fallacy.


p.s. Why do you refer to yourself in the third person?

I'm less inclined to take the opinions of your Muslim site...

Again, your inclinations are of no consequence. Also, it is not "my" site.

[Jbuza]

Zenith Wrote
as thereal said, evolution does not work that way. the observations only contradict your version of evolution. mutations and recombinations happen in every new organism born. they are why every person looks different. they cause very slight differences. sometimes they cause more noticeable differences. in the case of the mouse growing flaps. that could be a small change in the order of DNA that caused more skin to grow between the legs. this is beneficial to the organism because the mouse (or whatever) can jump and glide from things away from predators.


None of the mice my cat brings home have grown flaps let alone wings. I know, I know perhaps the ones with flaps have evolved a sweeter taste, but they have evolved a diabolical toxin that is attacking the liver of my cat. I'm sure my cat will be dead within months. No more eating flappy mice. DNA is the information that causes animals to remain stable over time.
--------------------------
Zenith Wrote
flying squirrel? a squirrel is very similar to a mouse, they would have comon ancestors not too far back. one species of squirrel developed flaps of skin between its legs just as i have been talking about. it climbs trees and can jump from tree to tree, gliding through the air. a close relative and similarly shaped like a squirrel or mouse, the bat has larger flaps of skin between its elongated fingers and arms so that it can fly. i am not attributing this to random coincidences in mutations of dna or anything like most evolutionists say. i am saying that these changes in the dna are how god diversifies life after he has created it.


I assumed someone would use the flying squirrel. You start of quite well, as the fact that a “flying” squirrel exists is fact, but you rapidly go down hill from there. What actual evidence do you have that they had a common ancestor not to far back? What is the name of that common ancestor? How do intend to show that the Flying Squirrel hasn't existed from the beginning? Who is your god? The almighty God, the creator said that he created animals and they would produce their own kind. This seems to indicate a situation where the DNA of the animals ensures that their offspring will be the same kind of animal as their parents.

This idea that all specimens are transitional does not eliminate the need to show the transitional individuals that are half way between two known species. Since that has not been shown, and since observations do not show the ability of offspring to change species, evolution is a bunch of air, and not science. IT actually runs contrary to observations. Extinction not adaptation. Offspring containing DNA that ensures similarity with parents. What do we actually observe that shows us that evolution is true, because the evidence you gave was a nice story, but it had 0 evidence.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

DNA is the information that causes animals to remain stable over time.

If the DNA itself is prone to copying flaws that how does it maintain this stability?

If the farmer did nothing and just let the animals reproduce would there be any stability?

Or is the farmer maintaining the stability in the traits?

[Mastriani]

Bgood, I am not trying to initiate any antagonism, but I have to comment.

The differences in your arguments here are most often being polarized around the inherent differences of opened and closed systems, and certain people are unable to equate the difference to the natural cycle of change within those systems at the DNA/haploid/genome/chromosome/gene levels.

One of the best tools for the argument can be found in looking at the DNA profiling that has gone on for years with wolf packs, both migratory and because of man's intrusions, isolated. Tells a very compelling story.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Bgood, I am not trying to initiate any antagonism, but I have to comment.

The differences in your arguments here are most often being polarized around the inherent differences of opened and closed systems, and certain people are unable to equate the difference to the natural cycle of change within those systems at the DNA/haploid/genome/chromosome/gene levels.

One of the best tools for the argument can be found in looking at the DNA profiling that has gone on for years with wolf packs, both migratory and because of man's intrusions, isolated. Tells a very compelling story.

Do you have a link?
=)