Why Evolution is not true?

[Squid]

I would love to chime in here but I don't have the time right now, I'll return (hopefully soon) with something of substance to contribute.

[Squid]

Hmmm, mutation doesn't lead to evolution?  First, you must understand mutation's role in the evolutionary process.  Mutation provides the raw material, so to speak, for natural selection to work upon - the different alleles in a population give natural selection something to work with.  If there were no variation the population wouldn't last very long.  An example is the Irish potato blight since most of the potatoes were effectively clones of one another - all susceptible to the same blight.

Secondly, the literature is loaded with genetic information relating to evolution.  The sequencing of the human and chimpanzee genomes gave us an insight into our differences and similarities (genetically) to our closest living cousins - the same for the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome (which helped settled the interbreeding hypothesis).

Mutation is just part of the process.

You also mention that you fail to see how small changes can infer above species level evolution (macroevolution).  It is not simply inferred from observed changes between two generations - that is what we call a strawman argument.

For the eels it is a much better bet logically and scientifically that they make use of the Earth's magnetic fields much the way migrating birds do.  This was proposed and tested experimentally as far back as the early 1970's (Rommel & McCleave, 1973).  Research on migrating birds has produced evidence for the role of electromagnetism in their migration patterns along with wind currents, food resources and so forth (Wiltschko, Munro, Ford & Wiltschko, 2006; Heyers, Manns, Luksch, Gunturkun & Mouritsen, 2007).  Subsequent research on eels has provided evidence that this may indeed be the case (van Ginneken, Muusze, Breteler, Jansma, van den Thillart, 2005; Westerberg & Lagenfelt, 2008).  Some "intelligence" guiding them is not supported by any evidence and also makes the argument an argument from personal incredulity.

What you may want to do is learn more about evolutionary biology before rejecting it so quickly as I think you may have a distorted idea of what it is and what the theory explains:

Evolution101

References:

Heyers, D., Manns, M., Luksch, H., Gunturkun, O., & Mouritsen, H. (2007). A Visual Pathway Links Brain Structures Active during Magnetic Compass Orientation in Migratory Birds.  PLoS, 2(9), e937.

Rommel, S. & McCleave, J. (1973). Prediction of oceanic electric fields in relation to fish migration.  ICES Journal of Marine Science, 35, 27-31.

Westerberg, H & Lagenfelt, I. (2008). Sub-sea power cables and the migration behaviour of the European eel.  Fisheries Management & Ecology, 15, 369-375.

Wiltschko, W., Munro, U., Ford, H. & Wiltschko, R. (2006). Bird navigation: what type of information does the magnetite-based receiver provide? Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 273, 2815-20.

van Ginneken, V., Muusze, B., Breteler, J., Jansma, D., & van den Thillart, G. (2005). Microelectronic detection of activity level and magnetic orientation of yellow European eel, Anguilla anguilla L., in a pond.  Environmental Biology of Fishes, 72, 313-320.

[BadPoison]

Hmmm, mutation doesn't lead to evolution?  First, you must understand mutation's role in the evolutionary process.  Mutation provides the raw material, so to speak, for natural selection to work upon - the different alleles in a population give natural selection something to work with.  If there were no variation the population wouldn't last very long.  An example is the Irish potato blight since most of the potatoes were effectively clones of one another - all susceptible to the same blight.

Secondly, the literature is loaded with genetic information relating to evolution.  The sequencing of the human and chimpanzee genomes gave us an insight into our differences and similarities (genetically) to our closest living cousins - the same for the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome (which helped settled the interbreeding hypothesis).

Mutation is just part of the process.

You also mention that you fail to see how small changes can infer above species level evolution (macroevolution).  It is not simply inferred from observed changes between two generations - that is what we call a strawman argument.

For the eels it is a much better bet logically and scientifically that they make use of the Earth's magnetic fields much the way migrating birds do.  This was proposed and tested experimentally as far back as the early 1970's (Rommel & McCleave, 1973).  Research on migrating birds has produced evidence for the role of electromagnetism in their migration patterns along with wind currents, food resources and so forth (Wiltschko, Munro, Ford & Wiltschko, 2006; Heyers, Manns, Luksch, Gunturkun & Mouritsen, 2007).  Subsequent research on eels has provided evidence that this may indeed be the case (van Ginneken, Muusze, Breteler, Jansma, van den Thillart, 2005; Westerberg & Lagenfelt, 2008).  Some "intelligence" guiding them is not supported by any evidence and also makes the argument an argument from personal incredulity.

What you may want to do is learn more about evolutionary biology before rejecting it so quickly as I think you may have a distorted idea of what it is and what the theory explains:

Evolution101

References:

Heyers, D., Manns, M., Luksch, H., Gunturkun, O., & Mouritsen, H. (2007). A Visual Pathway Links Brain Structures Active during Magnetic Compass Orientation in Migratory Birds.  PLoS, 2(9), e937.

Rommel, S. & McCleave, J. (1973). Prediction of oceanic electric fields in relation to fish migration.  ICES Journal of Marine Science, 35, 27-31.

Westerberg, H & Lagenfelt, I. (2008). Sub-sea power cables and the migration behaviour of the European eel.  Fisheries Management & Ecology, 15, 369-375.

Wiltschko, W., Munro, U., Ford, H. & Wiltschko, R. (2006). Bird navigation: what type of information does the magnetite-based receiver provide? Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 273, 2815-20.

van Ginneken, V., Muusze, B., Breteler, J., Jansma, D., & van den Thillart, G. (2005). Microelectronic detection of activity level and magnetic orientation of yellow European eel, Anguilla anguilla L., in a pond.  Environmental Biology of Fishes, 72, 313-320.

Thank you Squid! Messenger, if you're half the rational thinker you purport to be, you'll take this to heart:
 Don't ever take the sole word of one person on the internet, but look into the sources Squid posted. Do your own research, look into the works of those who are leaders in evolutionary biology (or any field of study that you're interested in debating, or just want to learn more about) and see what you learn. I'm not saying you should necessarily change your faith, only that you should come to your own conclusions based on the most accurate information available. I definitely know how hard it can be for any of us to challenge our views of the universe, especially if we've held the same view for a significant amount of time... but look at all of the good that's come of people challenging what they were previously told about the universe: Galileo, Johannes Kepler, and Alfred Wegener (Wegener put forward the continental drift hypothesis which later resulted in the contemporary theory of plate tectonics <-- for those of us not overly familiar with geology) were all champions of the pursuit of knowledge. Do you have that sort of courage?

Messenger, do you possess the ability to think 'outside of the box' just as those I mentioned (and many others) were able to? Or will you continue to live a life of ridiculous irrationality and belief in things without evidence? Will you continue to debate on a losing side of an argument that you truly do not yet understand, or will you educate yourself, and with humility reexamine the beliefs you currently see as untouchable?

[Messenger]

Alternatively one might consider that science is an ongoing and self-correcting attempt to explore the observable universe ... the fact that it is self-correcting means that nothing can be held as absolute, the fact that it is ongoing means it isn't done yet and therefore does not claim to have an answer to every dumb question.

I'm sure that science will discover some day how they do it (I guess it is related to Earth magnetic field)
But this is not the subject, regardless of the way they do it, information must be fed externally

[Messenger]

Seriously? I mean, seriously? That had absolutely nothing to do with what karadan was saying, and it was one of the most ridiculous "arguments" I've ever heard.

BMW factory can really be altering old models to make new one; but seeing the differences does not prove that
It is obvious but you are trying to protect your blind belief!

Karadan is correct, the changing of the cabbage white butterfly was a very good example of rapid evolution. She dealt you a deathblow, get over it. On to the next argument, if you have one that is not as ridiculous as your "eels" argument. Are you really trying to say that god tells the eels where to go? Like Kyu said, it's not rocket science.

Does color change prove fins growing into legs  

[Messenger]

Hmmm, mutation doesn't lead to evolution?  First, you must understand mutation's role in the evolutionary process.  Mutation provides the raw material, so to speak, for natural selection to work upon - the different alleles in a population give natural selection something to work with.  If there were no variation the population wouldn't last very long.  An example is the Irish potato blight since most of the potatoes were effectively clones of one another - all susceptible to the same blight.

Secondly, the literature is loaded with genetic information relating to evolution.  The sequencing of the human and chimpanzee genomes gave us an insight into our differences and similarities (genetically) to our closest living cousins - the same for the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome (which helped settled the interbreeding hypothesis).

Mutation is just part of the process.

You also mention that you fail to see how small changes can infer above species level evolution (macroevolution).  It is not simply inferred from observed changes between two generations - that is what we call a strawman argument.

You must note that I don't deny evolution completely, It is possible but "Intelligently"
So you must concentrate on proving that Mutation do the change, not proving that the change occurs

For the eels it is a much better bet logically and scientifically that they make use of the Earth's magnetic fields much the way migrating birds do.

I agree but how they get the information about the location?
Earth magnetic field is like a compass, from where they get the map (it can not be from inside, this is my point)

[bowmore]

Alternatively one might consider that science is an ongoing and self-correcting attempt to explore the observable universe ... the fact that it is self-correcting means that nothing can be held as absolute, the fact that it is ongoing means it isn't done yet and therefore does not claim to have an answer to every dumb question.

I'm sure that science will discover some day how they do it (I guess it is related to Earth magnetic field)
But this is not the subject, regardless of the way they do it, information must be fed externally

They can achieve this without being fed external information, by merely acting out the behavioral patterns they got through their instincts. Tied in with the possibility of following the Earth's magnetic field, this would make a possible explanation.

[Messenger]

They can achieve this without being fed external information, by merely acting out the behavioral patterns they got through their instincts. Tied in with the possibility of following the Earth's magnetic field, this would make a possible explanation.

Instinct itself is another disprove of non-intelligent evolution

Can you explain/imagine the logical sequence that the first eel did that till now?

[bowmore]

Instinct itself is another disprove of non-intelligent evolution

Why? What about instincts contradicts what in evolution theory?

Can you explain/imagine the logical sequence that the first eel did that till now?

That's a loaded question, we don't know whether eels have always done this.

[Messenger]

Why? What about instincts contradicts what in evolution theory?

I'll make a post about that

Can you explain/imagine the logical sequence that the first eel did that till now?

That's a loaded question, we don't know whether eels have always done this.

That is the point, according to Evolution nothing have always been the same (it evolved)
So an evolutionist must explain how it started

A typical answer will be something like this:
Eels did not breed good in their living areas (according to predators or other reasons)
So they travel (randomly) and the ones that traveled back (by accident) to their birth places survived better
over millions of years, only those ones survived and breed
Now we have only those ones

[bowmore]

Why? What about instincts contradicts what in evolution theory?

I'll make a post about that

Looking forward to it.

That's a loaded question, we don't know whether eels have always done this.

That is the point, according to Evolution nothing have always been the same (it evolved)
So an evolutionist must explain how it started

A typical answer will be something like this:
Eels did not breed good in their living areas (according to predators or other reasons)
So they travel (randomly) and the ones that traveled back (by accident) to their birth places survived better
over millions of years, only those ones survived and breed
Now we have only those ones

Ok I get what you were asking for now.
Personally I can't answer this. I'm no biologist or anything, so I'm out of my depth here. All I can offer is that the instincts to return to the breeding grounds emerged through mutation, and they offered some advantage over those eels that didn't have this mutation. I can't give you specifics though, and from a quick google, I gather science itself would need more research into eels to conclusively answer this.

[Messenger]

Personally I can't answer this. I'm no biologist or anything, so I'm out of my depth here. All I can offer is that the instincts to return to the breeding grounds emerged through mutation, and they offered some advantage over those eels that didn't have this mutation. I can't give you specifics though, and from a quick google, I gather science itself would need more research into eels to conclusively answer this.

Try to think abstract not specific
Regardless of the method they use or any explanation
The information about the location (both current and origin) must be fed externally (and intelligently)

For example a sailor maybe know how to navigate
but to go from place x to y
some external information about x and y must be known prior to navigation (Lat. Alt., satellite image, etc.)

Second
It is not just a static behavior, like smelling blood for example
It varies depending on the origin place and the current one, so if you through an eel any where in the world, it will manage to go back
You can not say that the current location is hard wired inside its brain  

[bowmore]

Try to think abstract not specific
Regardless of the method they use or any explanation
The information about the location (both current and origin) must be fed externally (and intelligently)

Why can that information not be passed internally and why do you insist it must be passed intelligently?

Eels may simply remember the magnetic field signature of their birth place, and have the ability to navigate to any signature.
It's not that difficult to achieve really.
It's just that I can't answer you how it actually works, just how it may work. But as I said, that's because I'm no specialist in the field.

[Messenger]

Why can that information not be passed internally and why do you insist it must be passed intelligently?

Because it can not come from nothing

Eels may simply remember the magnetic field signature of their birth place, and have the ability to navigate to any signature.
It's not that difficult to achieve really.
It's just that I can't answer you how it actually works, just how it may work. But as I said, that's because I'm no specialist in the field.

There is nothing called magnetic signature and even if it exists, they must know what to remember before they remember it
Then the more difficult part is the current location (even a magnetic signature of the current location has no benefits without something like a map)

[Kyuuketsuki]

I'm sure that science will discover some day how they do it (I guess it is related to Earth magnetic field)

Maybe, maybe not but ...

But this is not the subject, regardless of the way they do it, information must be fed externally

... no it must not "have to", there could be an entirely different explanation.

That, and this is what you don't seem to get, is the beauty of science ... nothing in science demands we MUST know everything now, that we must have an answer to every dumb question asked. Not that I am saying that your question is specifically dumb but your insistence that it is an external information source (presumed ID) is incredibly so.

You must note that I don't deny evolution completely, It is possible but "Intelligently"

Guided evolution? Prove there is an intelligent force directing evolution! Provide some reasonable evidence that this intelligent force exists.

So you must concentrate on proving that Mutation do the change, not proving that the change occurs

Mutation doesn't "do the change" it is simply one of a number of factors providing resources to the evolutionary process.

I agree but how they get the information about the location?

It is not known.

Earth magnetic field is like a compass, from where they get the map (it can not be from inside, this is my point)

As I say it is a good question, entirely valid but it is equally valid to say that as yet we do not know.

Instinct itself is another disprove of non-intelligent evolution

Why?

Can you explain/imagine the logical sequence that the first eel did that till now?

No, again that is an unanswered question at present ... perhaps it will be something similar to the mechanisms that guide cod to their breeding grounds or the migration of birds (currently believed to be based on a variety of senses including the use of the sun as a compass, an innate ability to detect magnetic fields and sufficient cognitive ability to form, store and recall mental maps) but the key point is that science is working on it and one day we may just know why it is and how it came to be.

That is the point, according to Evolution nothing have always been the same (it evolved)
So an evolutionist must explain how it started

Agreed ... eventually but in the absence of an answer now it is entirely acceptable to not know.

Eels did not breed good in their living areas (according to predators or other reasons)
So they travel (randomly) and the ones that traveled back (by accident) to their birth places survived better over millions of years, only those ones survived and breed Now we have only those ones

Will it? Where did you get that from?

Try to think abstract not specific

Why? So you can get us to say things we don't know, be shown to be wrong and be made to look fools? Looking foolish is part of your job description not ours! The fact is that at present there is no complete explanation for this phenomenon but science is working on it and one day there may be.

The information about the location (both current and origin) must be fed externally (and intelligently)

No, as stated above there may be another explanation ... nothing about the migration of eels necessarily requests or requires intelligent external action.

For example a sailor maybe know how to navigate
but to go from place x to y
some external information about x and y must be known prior to navigation (Lat. Alt., satellite image, etc.)

Non sequitur ... sailors are not eels.

It is not just a static behavior, like smelling blood for example
It varies depending on the origin place and the current one, so if you through an eel any where in the world, it will manage to go back
You can not say that the current location is hard wired inside its brain

So what? It's an unanswered question ... science is working on it and one day it may no longer be.

Why have you not dealt with my earlier post, "Is Evolution Science" and associated remarks? Are you too scared to deal with it?

Kyu