KBCid wrote:Here is the reality if evolution is such a fact then they can define the evolutionary rate.
Ivellious wrote:lol, what total bulls*** is this? Honestly, how do you even come up with such an absurd requirement? "Rate of evolution" is not a scientific constant, and absolutely no scientist will tell you it is. The rate that natural selection affects populations is contingent on hundreds if not thousands of factors, so no, you can't just slap a label on evolution saying that it occurs at a constant rate. You would have to take into account environmental factors, competition factors, mutation rates/factors, availability of resources, and any number of other outstanding factors, and you still wouldn't be able to perfectly predict a rate of anything. Especially in the case of ancient whales, where all we have to go off of to give us a timeline is the fossils themselves.
You are working for our side aren't you? C'mon tell the truth cause you are making this wayyyyyy to easy.
Evolution of the mutation rate.
Abstract
Understanding the mechanisms of evolution "requires" information on the "rate" of appearance of new mutations and their effects at the molecular and phenotypic levels.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20594608
Did you read that alright? "Understanding the mechanisms of evolution "requires" information on the rate". If you can't define how a system functions then it is useless for scientific consideration.
Mutation and Evolutionary Rates in Adélie Penguins from the Antarctic
Abstract Top
Precise estimations of molecular rates are fundamental to our understanding of the processes of evolution. In principle, mutation and evolutionary rates for neutral regions of the same species are expected to be equal.
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/inf ... en.1000209
Did you see that? "Precise estimations of molecular rates are fundamental to our understanding of the processes of evolution." Have you actually talked with an evolutionary biologist?
Mitochondrial DNA Mutation Rates
The problems with these studies were so bad that Henry Gee, a member of the editorial staff for the journal, Nature, harshly described the studies as "garbage." After considering the number of sequences involved (136 mtDNA sequences), Gee calculated that the total number of potentially correct parsimonious trees is somewhere in excess of one billion.25 Geneticist Alan Templeton (Washington University) suggests that low-level mixing among early human populations may have scrambled the DNA sequences sufficiently so that the question of the origin of modern humans and a date for "Eve" can never be settled by mtDNA.22 In a letter to Science, Mark Stoneking (one of the original researchers) acknowledged that the theory of an "African Eve" has been invalidated.23
Another interesting aspect of the "molecular clock" theory is the way in which the mutation rate itself was determined. Contrary to what many might think, the mutation rate was not initially determined by any sort of direct analysis, but by supposed phylogenic evolutionary relationships between humans and chimps. In other words, the mutation rate was calculated based on the assumption that the theory in question was already true. This is a rather circular assumption and as such all results that are based on this assumption will be consistent with this assumption - like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Since the rate was calculated based on previous assumptions of evolutionary time, then the results will automatically "confirm" the previous assumptions. If one truly wishes independent confirmation of a theory, then one cannot calibrate the confirmation test by the theory, or any part of the theory, that is being tested. And yet, this is exactly what was done by scientists such as Sarich, one of the pioneers of the molecular-clock idea. Sarich began by calculating the mutation rates of various species "...whose divergence could be reliably dated from fossils." He then applied that calibration to the chimpanzee-human split, dating that split at from five to seven million years ago.
Using Sarich's mutation calibrations, Wilson and Cann applied them to their mtDNA studies, comparing "...the ratio of mitochondrial DNA divergence among humans to that between humans and chimpanzees."24 By this method, they calculated that the common ancestor of all modern humans, the "African Eve", lived about 200,000 years ago.
http://www.detectingdesign.com/dnamutationrates.html
Mutation Rate Evolution
We tested the "general reduction principle" by measuring mutation rates of E. coli as it evolved in an unchanging laboratory environment. What we found did not corroborate the "general reduction principle"; in fact, not only was the mutation rate not reduced during evolution in this constant environment, but in three of twelve independent E. coli populations, the mutation rate spontaneously increased by roughly two orders of magnitude! So we decided that a fresh look at the underlying theory was in order.
http://www.unm.edu/~pgerrish/MuRateEvol.html
Ivellious wrote: if you think ID is such a fact, give me a perfect constant rate of creation of new species. And if it is wrong even once, let me tell you that I will hold your own logic against you and say that ID is falsified immediately.
For those of us who are intelligent we need to understand what type of mechanism is functioning BEFORE we make predictions. This is why the evolutionary hypothesis has concepts failing all the time. They don't understand that there is a system much less how the system functions. Of course this doesn't stop them from making circular reasoning predictions.
KBCid wrote: if they can't define the mechanisms operational characteristics then they haven't defined the mechanism. In real science like mechanical engineering we can define mathematically how a cause makes an effect. In the pseudo-science of evoution they feel confident that they can change the mechanisms operational charactristics at will to keep the theoretical mechanism as a standard.
Ivellious wrote:Really? Mechanical engineering is identical to all sciences? Please define the precise mathematical constants involved in archaeology or the development of human societies. And if ID is a "real" science, hold yourself to your own standards for once and define the mechanism of creation in mathematical terms. And once again, if in a year that formula changes even a little, remember that ID is just wrong, end
of story.
Nope mechanical engineering is not like every other science. Mechanical engineering is actual science based on the scientific method. What can you compare to that?
Ivellious wrote:I also have no idea how you continue to get off saying that the theory must be right at its outset and never once be altered, or else it will be false. What kind of nonsense is that?
The outset of a theory is a hypothesis. You need to comfirm the hypothesis to make a theory and once confirmed it needs to make valid predictions. You know those things that keep failing for the ToE.
KBCid wrote:We have to remember here the difference between theory and hypothesis as the evo's push it. A theory has enough lines of evidence to back it and the foundational concepts have never been disproven. In mechanical engineering we have a theoretical concept of how the internal combustion engine is supposed to cause a specific effect and if the conceptual mechanism were to change as many times and as far as the mechanism of evolution has we would be back to the hypothetical stage.
Ivellious wrote:Not true. Your combustion engine is a single example that exists within several theories. There is no "Theory of the modern combustion engine." Instead, the combustion engine is simply an aspect of scientific discovery. Discovering a flaw in our knowledge of the combustion engine would not automatically refute all of mechanical engineering on a moment's notice. Nor would it falsify the theories in physics and physical chemistry that it employs.
Oh my...
The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice: Vol. 1 - 2nd Edition, Revised
Thermodynamics, Fluid Flow, Performance
Charles Fayette Taylor
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/de ... 2&tid=6992
AUTO THEORY
Internal Combustion Engine Theory: A First Look
http://www.secondchancegarage.com/public/146.cfm
Internal combustion engines, their theory, construction and operation
http://www.archive.org/stream/internalc ... g_djvu.txt
Internal-combustion engines, theory and design: a textbook on internal-combustion engines for engineers and students in engineering
http://books.google.com/books/about/Int ... hMAAAAMAAJ
.....etc. etc. etc.
I just can't help myself here.
