Flaws in Evolution

[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.

Do you have a link?
=)

I will do my best, but as I stated previously, I lean more towards hard documentation, as opposed to quoting "the internets".

This is a very interesting read:"Thomas RH, Schaffner W, Wilson AC, Pääbo. 1989. DNA phylogeny of the extinct marsupial wolf. Nature 340:465-7"
Link for general nature of DNA studies, with reference citations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA
For contentions of DNA vs. Mitochondrial DNA and the effects:
http://www.txtwriter.com/Onscience/Arti ... lydog.html
Somewhat long read, relevant information for present contention:
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=43

Try these on for best fit, if not, I can still point you towards less ubiquitous materials at a library.

Sorry, adding one, as presenting both sides, I have read numerous books on this as well, take it as you wish:
http://www.tdtone.org/darwin/Index.html

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I will do my best, but as I stated previously, I lean more towards hard documentation, as opposed to quoting "the internets".

I agree, could you direct me to the journal entry or other such document which could further enlighten those following this thread.

Thanks
=)

[Mastriani]

I will do my best, but as I stated previously, I lean more towards hard documentation, as opposed to quoting "the internets".

I agree, could you direct me to the journal entry or other such document which could further enlighten those following this thread.

Thanks
=)

This is for those looking at DNA in closed(isolated) systems. This is a direct study of all aspects, including DNA, of 3 wolf packs in a remote geographic locale.
http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/pdf_files ... rt2005.pdf

[BGoodForGoodSake]

This is for those looking at DNA in closed(isolated) systems. This is a direct study of all aspects, including DNA, of 3 wolf packs in a remote geographic locale.
http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/pdf_files ... rt2005.pdf

This is an excellent article. One can see the interplay of all the factors involved.
Moose effecting Fir growth and Estabilished Fir tree's determining moose diet, etc.
Disease and parasites and weather conditions all effect a population. Interdependancies abound, even in such a small ecosystem a complex web exists.

[Jbuza]

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?

I'm certian you will find that the flock will tend to continue producing egg laying wing flapping feed scratching chickens because of the stable information contained in their DNA

[Zenith]

None of the mice my cat brings home have grown flaps let alone wings.

are you trying to be sarcastic or are you just ignorant? changes only occur in germ cells, the cells that will potentially become the offspring of the organism.

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.

whatever survives, survives. mice do really well at surviving, so they are still around. but in other environments, like the one where the flying squirrel evolved, common mice might have more predators and that means that the mice with advantageous mutations have a better chance at surviving.

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.

but that doesn't agree with evidence, and more importantly (to me), it doesn't agree with my own direct observations of the world around me. every single organism is different from the next. this means that there never were, nor ever will be any transitional, or "half way between" organisms. the dna of every organism is different, if only so slightly. the differences, and the constant recombination of those differences, and the seemingly random (but only because its too complex for us to understand yet) mutations of genes that make up the differences are what causes evolution.

what "actual evidence" do you have that every creature on earth has existed unchanged since god put them here?

[Mastriani]

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.

This is simply a matter of you not understanding the true simplicity of what DNA mutation does Mr. Jbuza.

If you had read thoroughly any of the posts that Bgood or myself had placed in this forum, it would have become quickly self-evident.

In the example of the wolf that I have used. The wolf is known to geneticists as a "frontloaded" species. This means that within the genetic code there are literally thousands of mutated genes. In those mutated genes are the code for everything from a wolf to a Mastiff to a chihuahua.

I already know what you are going to ask: Why then when two wolves mate don't we see the production as a chihuahua? Because the conditions are not present that require that mutation.

We previously had the discourse pertaining to natural selection/selective breeding. I think selective breeding is a bogus term, so I stick to natural selection as reference. In the wild, innate habitat of the wolf, they are completely selective in their breeding, so that terminology is completely baseless as a point of refutation. It is also known as line breeding. Within a social system that line breeds, in a specific environment, there is really no chance of mutation, unless there is catastrophic environmental failure/change. As in the case of Isle Royale wolf packs, an isolated system with many generations of line breeding, there are abnoramilities showing, as in reduced bone mass in members, and also a mutation that causes an extra vertebrae as a defect. These are mutations that have occured because the breeding is selective to a small isolated population, and therefore, natural selection has been stunted and the negative traits persist.

If you look at the Indian Red wolf, you find color alterations(red fur), and a much smaller species(roughly half the height/1/3 the weight), which was confused for a fox/coyote for many years. After a DNA study of the subject, it was found that it was clearly a wolf, not a fox or coyote. It is vastly different from it's predecessor, Canis lupus, the America's wolf. It is a mutation.

Every dog you see, is a wolf mutation, or perhaps to better suit your terminology, a transitional (mutation) subject. It is all in the genetics from the start, by design, to allow for variability so that the species has the potential to adapt and survive. Evolution is, by design, a handprint signature of directed intelligence to ensure continuation of species within dynamic systems.

[Byblos]

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.

This is simply a matter of you not understanding the true simplicity of what DNA mutation does Mr. Jbuza.

If you had read thoroughly any of the posts that Bgood or myself had placed in this forum, it would have become quickly self-evident.

In the example of the wolf that I have used. The wolf is known to geneticists as a "frontloaded" species. This means that within the genetic code there are literally thousands of mutated genes. In those mutated genes are the code for everything from a wolf to a Mastiff to a chihuahua.

I already know what you are going to ask: Why then when two wolves mate don't we see the production as a chihuahua? Because the conditions are not present that require that mutation.

We previously had the discourse pertaining to natural selection/selective breeding. I think selective breeding is a bogus term, so I stick to natural selection as reference. In the wild, innate habitat of the wolf, they are completely selective in their breeding, so that terminology is completely baseless as a point of refutation. It is also known as line breeding. Within a social system that line breeds, in a specific environment, there is really no chance of mutation, unless there is catastrophic environmental failure/change. As in the case of Isle Royale wolf packs, an isolated system with many generations of line breeding, there are abnoramilities showing, as in reduced bone mass in members, and also a mutation that causes an extra vertebrae as a defect. These are mutations that have occured because the breeding is selective to a small isolated population, and therefore, natural selection has been stunted and the negative traits persist.

If you look at the Indian Red wolf, you find color alterations(red fur), and a much smaller species(roughly half the height/1/3 the weight), which was confused for a fox/coyote for many years. After a DNA study of the subject, it was found that it was clearly a wolf, not a fox or coyote. It is vastly different from it's predecessor, Canis lupus, the America's wolf. It is a mutation.

Every dog you see, is a wolf mutation, or perhaps to better suit your terminology, a transitional (mutation) subject. It is all in the genetics from the start, by design, to allow for variability so that the species has the potential to adapt and survive. Evolution is, by design, a handprint signature of directed intelligence to ensure continuation of species within dynamic systems.

In other words, a wolf is a wild dog and a dog is a domesticated wolf. Where's the evidence for speciation?

[Jbuza]

Zenith
Are you trying to be sarcastic or are you just ignorant? changes only occur in germ cells, the cells that will potentially become the offspring of the organism.

So then how does a mutation happen in response to a stressful condition? The environment of germ cells remains unchanged; it would matter little to the germ cell what the outside environment was like. Everything is supposedly in stasis today and that is why we don't see evolution. Why don't you explain how a germ cell mutates in response to a stressful condition it has never experienced.
------------------------
Zenith
whatever survives, survives. mice do really well at surviving, so they are still around. but in other environments, like the one where the flying squirrel evolved, common mice might have more predators and that means that the mice with advantageous mutations have a better chance at surviving.

Yet they seem to be the same
-------------------------
Zenith
but that doesn't agree with evidence, and more importantly (to me), it doesn't agree with my own direct observations of the world around me. every single organism is different from the next. this means that there never were, nor ever will be any transitional, or "half way between" organisms. the dna of every organism is different, if only so slightly. the differences, and the constant recombination of those differences, and the seemingly random (but only because its too complex for us to understand yet) mutations of genes that make up the differences are what causes evolution.

Are you seriously missing this, or just being ignorant. If all animals are in decent from more simple forms, than there are only two possible observations. New forms appear complete, or new forms appear gradually. If one organism changes through the most gradual process into another organism, than their must be that animal, although only slightly different from its parents, that is halfway between the organism the selective pressure was on and the organism that it became when things were once again in stasis. You cannot say well everything is a transitional and have that eliminate the need to show animals that were partway through this gradual process of change.
--------------------------
Zenith
what "actual evidence" do you have that every creature on earth has existed unchanged since god put them here?

Observations. We see that animals remain stable. We do not see the above partway evolved organisms. My own logic and reason. The fact that alternatives are asinine.
--------------------------

[Jbuza]

Jbuza
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.

Mastriani
In the example of the wolf that I have used. The wolf is known to geneticists as a "frontloaded" species. This means that within the genetic code there are literally thousands of mutated genes. In those mutated genes are the code for everything from a wolf to a Mastiff to a chihuahua.

Oh how wonderful, the evolutionists have interpreted the DNA of wolfs from an evolutionary standpoint. Surprise surprise. You have nothing. If you had a wolf specimen from the past that you could show did not have those DNA sequences, than you might have credibility to say they are mutations. The observation that wolfs have these DNA sequences is evidence, the ludicrous interpretation that we know these are mutations is not evidence it is an interpretation based on false assumptions, and is nothing. All it shows is that Wolfs and other dogs have some DNA in common. What a wonderful find.
----------------------------
Mastriani
We previously had the discourse pertaining to natural selection/selective breeding. I think selective breeding is a bogus term, so I stick to natural selection as reference. In the wild, innate habitat of the wolf, they are completely selective in their breeding, so that terminology is completely baseless as a point of refutation. It is also known as line breeding. Within a social system that line breeds, in a specific environment, there is really no chance of mutation, unless there is catastrophic environmental failure/change. As in the case of Isle Royale wolf packs, an isolated system with many generations of line breeding, there are abnoramilities showing, as in reduced bone mass in members, and also a mutation that causes an extra vertebrae as a defect. These are mutations that have occured because the breeding is selective to a small isolated population, and therefore, natural selection has been stunted and the negative traits persist.
If you look at the Indian Red wolf, you find color alterations(red fur), and a much smaller species(roughly half the height/1/3 the weight), which was confused for a fox/coyote for many years. After a DNA study of the subject, it was found that it was clearly a wolf, not a fox or coyote. It is vastly different from it's predecessor, Canis lupus, the America's wolf. It is a mutation.
Every dog you see, is a wolf mutation, or perhaps to better suit your terminology, a transitional (mutation) subject. It is all in the genetics from the start, by design, to allow for variability so that the species has the potential to adapt and survive. Evolution is, by design, a handprint signature of directed intelligence to ensure continuation of species within dynamic systems.


Wow thanks for your evolution interpretation of wolfs, that's great. IT doesn't mean anything, except show's that you believe evolution to be true. IT does show that man could take wolfs and breed all manner of dog by breeding for desired traits.
------------------------------

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Zenith
Are you trying to be sarcastic or are you just ignorant? changes only occur in germ cells, the cells that will potentially become the offspring of the organism.

So then how does a mutation happen in response to a stressful condition?

Mutations always occur and accumulate in the gene pool.

The environment of germ cells remains unchanged; it would matter little to the germ cell what the outside environment was like. Everything is supposedly in stasis today and that is why we don't see evolution.

This is incorrect, stable environments allow genetic drift thus all populations are in effect transition species.

Why don't you explain how a germ cell mutates in response to a stressful condition it has never experienced.

This is not what is occuring the germ cells experience mutation, once in the environment the entire organism is tested until death.

whatever survives, survives. mice do really well at surviving, so they are still around. but in other environments, like the one where the flying squirrel evolved, common mice might have more predators and that means that the mice with advantageous mutations have a better chance at surviving.

Yet they seem to be the same

How so? Thare are many species of mice and rats. What may appear the same on the outside is simply a crude overview by you. Perhaps you may want to look into this with more detail.
-------------------------

Are you seriously missing this, or just being ignorant. If all animals are in decent from more simple forms, than there are only two possible observations. New forms appear complete, or new forms appear gradually. If one organism changes through the most gradual process into another organism, than their must be that animal, although only slightly different from its parents, is halfway between the organism the selective pressure was on and the organism that it became when things were once again in stasis.

No that is the mistake you are making,
You think an organism needs to appear halfway between parent and daughter. This is not what is occuring, form is a direct result of DNA and Environment. Fortunately for life animals are not strict programs which always develop identically no matter what the situation is. It is a complex machinery which has the ability to adapt. Thus in certain conditions form will change, as in a locust population which goes into swarming mode when food supply is low. They are morphologically different.

Also due to the nature of the changes occuring there is no evident goal, it is only in hindsight that we can deduce that some organisms must have had common ancestry. Thus transitional forms may show features going one way than another.

You cannot say well everything is a transitional and have that eliminate the need to show animals that were partway through this gradual process of change.

Here you go half way between something in the past and a horse.

Zenith
what "actual evidence" do you have that every creature on earth has existed unchanged since god put them here?

Observations. We see that animals remain stable.

No we don't. All the evidence shows that gene pools are in a constant flux.

We do not see the above partway evolved organisms.

Again all organisms are complete, there are no partway organisms. A Wolf for example is not a transitional form from a coyote to a dog.

My own logic and reason. The fact that alternatives are asinine.

Please try to remain civil.
[/quote]

[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?

I'm certian you will find that the flock will tend to continue producing egg laying wing flapping feed scratching chickens because of the stable information contained in their DNA

Yes but traits will eventuall fall away from the ideal the breeder was maintaining. Which is the point, it is the breeder maintaining stability. Perhaps the behaviour of feed scratching may even dissapear, due to the nature of mutations and their effect on phenotypes we cannot predict.
But the point again is, left alone we cannot expect the population to maintain its current traits.

Refering to the article below it appears that DNA is not as stable as you assume.
http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/pdf_files ... rt2005.pdf

[Jbuza]

[Here you go half way between something in the past and a horse.

Someone draw that from a tooth, or assemble it from a mass of bones of unknown origin?

[Mastriani]

In other words, a wolf is a wild dog and a dog is a domesticated wolf. Where's the evidence for speciation?

Incorrect. There are inherent differences, ie. mutations, in the DNA of wolves and dogs to make them entirely separate entities, with some common traits. A wolf is wolf, and a dog is dog. Thus, speciation. Add to this the fact that I have had personal interaction with a Timber wolf, part of my Uncle's pack, they are very, very different in their makeup from the domesticated canine.

The same can directly be associated to the primate families. Likeness of DNA does not equate to exactness of DNA. Ergo, speciation.

[Jbuza]

In other words, a wolf is a wild dog and a dog is a domesticated wolf. Where's the evidence for speciation?

Incorrect. There are inherent differences, ie. mutations, in the DNA of wolves and dogs to make them entirely separate entities, with some common traits. A wolf is wolf, and a dog is dog. Thus, speciation. Add to this the fact that I have had personal interaction with a Timber wolf, part of my Uncle's pack, they are very, very different in their makeup from the domesticated canine.

The same can directly be associated to the primate families. Likeness of DNA does not equate to exactness of DNA. Ergo, speciation.

The difference is that wolfs and dogs can breed chimps and man cannot