Why Evolution is not true?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Because it can not come from nothing

Agreed it must be explainable but it is possible not to know as yet.

There is nothing called magnetic signature and even if it exists, they must know what to remember before they remember it

There are lots of things called "magnetic signature" including in animals and it is posited that this plays a role in migrating animals.

 

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)

Animals do not read maps but there are other explanations such as those for migrating birds 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, as I keep reiterating, 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.

Kyu

[Messenger]

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.

It is not science; it is logic
The cause nature can be discovered by science, the existence of the cause and being external is a must by logic

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.

Even those examples disprove evolution, it is like assuming that computer are built with exploding bombs in desert, then not only a computer is built by a coincidence, it comes with all working software as well

Where did you get that from?

Just guessing

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

Out of topic!
Evolution is indeed science (but an unproved one)

[Messenger]

There are lots of things called "magnetic signature" including in animals and it is posited that this plays a role in migrating animals.

Please bring a reference?

Animals do not read maps but there are other explanations such as those for migrating birds 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, as I keep reiterating, 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.

Regardless of it is known or not, it must start from outside
For example when evolutionists discuss organ evolution they claim that mutation is the cause
but regarding information, sorry mutation does not work here  

[Kyuuketsuki]

It is not science; it is logic

It is illogical to demand an answer that is not yet known.

The cause nature can be discovered by science, the existence of the cause and being external is a must by logic

Only inasmuch as the animal must be responding to external factors, nothing in that requests or requires external intelligence.

Even those examples disprove evolution, it is like assuming that computer are built with exploding bombs in desert, then not only a computer is built by a coincidence, it comes with all working software as well

Only in what passes for your brain.

Where did you get that from?

Just guessing

Then it is irrelevant.

Out of topic! Evolution is indeed science (but an unproved one)

No it isn't, the thread is entitled "Why Evolution is not true?" therefore an explanation of why "Evolution Is Science" is ABSOLUTELY & COMPLETELY on topic!

So I repeat, why have you not dealt with my earlier post, "Is Evolution Science" and associated remarks? I strongly suspect you are ignoring it because you are inherently incapable of answering it, that you simply lack the intelligence or specific knowledge to deal with it. Are you a coward?[/quote]

Kyu

[Messenger]

It is not science; it is logic

It is illogical to demand an answer that is not yet known.

You are confused, the answer is there "An external feeder must exist", science can only find How

Only inasmuch as the animal must be responding to external factors, nothing in that requests or requires external intelligence.

Then explain how did instinct about any external object came to be inside an animal brain?

No it isn't, the thread is entitled "Why Evolution is not true?" therefore an explanation of why "Evolution Is Science" is ABSOLUTELY & COMPLETELY on topic!

fine, I agree with you Evolution is science, still not true one

[Kyuuketsuki]

You are confused, the answer is there "An external feeder must exist", science can only find How

The how can be the why ... just because YOU believe there must be an external intelligent reason DOES NOT mean there is one! You're making the claim, YOU have to provide supporting evidence.

Then explain how did instinct about any external object came to be inside an animal brain?

What external object? You mean the terrain? Presumably it has senses, presumably it is able to remember where it has been and therefore trace its way back. Like I have repeatedly said science may not have an answer at present but someone is likely working on one and if they find one it will be published in one or more of a number of reputable journals of science.

fine, I agree with you Evolution is science, still not true one

There is no such thing as non-true science ... it either is science or it is not.

Now, not only have you NOT answered the post, you've effectively attempted to partially agree and dismiss it which is not an answer, you have entirely failed to deal with the following point made in that post so I'll repeat it.

The scientific community accepts the theory of evolution as science, there are a few (very few) who don't but no relevant scientist or group doubts evolution, not one. Evolution is a major scientific theory and, as a scientific theory, is now no more doubted than the theory that the Earth goes round the sun or that things fall towards the strongest attracting gravitational field ... there are no scientists or groups of scientists that works any longer on whether evolution occurs, they all study the mechanisms by which it proceeds.

You (poor li'l ol' you) disagree, you say it's not a true science, you think that it is some kind of pseudoscience, a joke perhaps ... but what you are really saying is that 99% of the scientific community (and 100% of all relevant experts) are either so stupid they have been fooled by this "evolution nonsense" or they are engaged in some kind of global conspiracy (that they are frauds). If there is any other option I am not aware of it ... so which is it? How do you explain how virtually the entire scientific community, arguably the most advanced thinkers on this planet, have been fooled into believing and promoting what you refer to as "not true science"?

Explain this.

You know you really seem to rate yourself as some kind of radical thinker but what's really interesting is that few, if any, of us are stupid and not one of us thinks you're the mega brain you seem to believe you are ... in fact most of us probably think you're a bit of a t*ss*r (though the other's are far too polite to say so).

Kyu

[oldschooldoc]

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

My blind belief? You are calling decades of research and scientific finding blind? Is it not you that believes in that which he can not see, touch, smell, or hear? That makes your belief blind, deaf and utterly senseless.

A BMW factory has nothing to do with it, cars are inanimate objects that are not subject to Darwinian evolution, get that through your head  :brick:  

The color change of the cabbage white butterfly is a minute example of evolution, rapid evolution at that. Fins turning into legs is very conceivable if you take the time to think about it without your blinders on.

I don't have the time to spell out an example, but maybe Kyu or Squid will see this and lend a hand.

[McQ]

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

My blind belief? You are calling decades of research and scientific finding blind? Is it not you that believes in that which he can not see, touch, smell, or hear? That makes your belief blind, deaf and utterly senseless.

A BMW factory has nothing to do with it, cars are inanimate objects that are not subject to Darwinian evolution, get that through your head  :brick:  

The color change of the cabbage white butterfly is a minute example of evolution, rapid evolution at that. Fins turning into legs is very conceivable if you take the time to think about it without your blinders on.

I don't have the time to spell out an example, but maybe Kyu or Squid will see this and lend a hand.

Don't bother. I don't see any reason to continue with this little game of Messenger's. He is not the least bit serious and has already received an official warning in another thread for doing essentially the same thing he is doing here. No responses to his inane banter are necessary, and go against the good advice to not feed the trolls.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Don't bother. I don't see any reason to continue with this little game of Messenger's. He is not the least bit serious and has already received an official warning in another thread for doing essentially the same thing he is doing here. No responses to his inane banter are necessary, and go against the good advice to not feed the trolls.

I disagree ... if he is allowed to post such drivel then he must be opposed. It's important.

If you want to end it then ban him.

Kyu

[oldschooldoc]

Don't bother. I don't see any reason to continue with this little game of Messenger's. He is not the least bit serious and has already received an official warning in another thread for doing essentially the same thing he is doing here. No responses to his inane banter are necessary, and go against the good advice to not feed the trolls.

I disagree ... if he is allowed to post such drivel then he must be opposed. It's important.

If you want to end it then ban him.

Kyu

I agree. I keep replying to him out of pride. I know pride isn't always a good thing, but in this case it is frustrating me. I don't want to give him the satisfaction of having the last word, mainly because then the last word would be nonsensical bullshit.

McQ, I just saw your warning to him on the other thread, so I will just stop responding to him.

[Squid]

About the bird migration and it coming from some external intelligence, there is NO evidence for such a conclusion and to say it is “logical” is a bit silly.  If you noticed one of my citations from my previous post about bird migrations, this article sheds light upon the migration ability.  The research done by Heyers et al. (2007) shows that, in migratory birds, the proposed pathway in question is the thalamofugal pathway â€" composed of retinal ganglia expressing cryptochrome and an area in the forebrain called Cluster N.  Crytpochrome just denote the receptors which are specialized to detect blue which also play a role in the circadian cycles of some animals.  Cluster N is a collection of forebrain areas in migratory birds which play a role in night-vision and as Heyers et al. propose, their internal “compass”.  In Anguilla Anguilla, among the physiological changes which take place before migration is the shift in their retina pigments from green-sensitive to blue-sensitive (Wood, P. and Partridge, 1993).

The authors also note that within cluster N, there is “high, sensory driven neuronal activity as indicated by the expression of the Immediate Early Gene ZENK during magnetic orientation”.  This is supported previously by independent evidence is several migratory bird species (Mouritsen, Feenders, Liedvogel, Wada,  & Jarvis, 2005; Liedvogel, Feenders, Wada, Troje, Jarvis & Mouritsen, 2007).

ZENK expression was utilized as a measure of neuronal activity.  The specific genes in question would be the cryptochrome CRY genes which are also involved in circadian cycles as well as the regulation of PRL (prolactin) which is involved in avian reproductive cycles (Yasuo, Watanabe, Tsukada, Takagi, Iigo, Shimada et al., 2004) as well as reproductive cycles in coral (Levy, Appelbaum, Leggat, Gothlif, Hayward, Miller et al., 2007) and involved in time-place learning in mice (Van der Zee, Havekes, Barf, Hut, Nijholt, Jacobs et al., 2008).

Electromagnetic orientation is not restricted to birds, a study of eels showed that there is a definite, seasonal dependent change in orientation in accordance with Earth’s magnetic field which I posted previously (van Ginneken, Muusze, Breteler, Jansma, van den Thillart, 2005; Westerberg & Lagenfelt, 2008).  Specifically, Westerberg & Lagenfelt showed that underground electrical power cables (which generate their own EMFs) disrupted the travel of the eels.

In birds, migration has been shown to be a genetically controlled process.  For instance, such behavior can be produced or changed to sedentary behavior within several generational breedings by intermixing migratory and sedentary birds (Berthold, 1999).  Also Moller (2001) notes that arrive time is dependent upon genetics and such can be linked directly to reproduction, stating:

…competition for early arrival among males may lead to condition-dependent migration associated with fitness benefits of early arrival achieved by individuals in prime condition.

As for migration in marine species, it does seem to be evolutionarily advantageous, as Roff (1988) notes:

Migration both influences the evolution of other traits and is contigent upon the evolution of other behavioural and demographic characters. The interaction between such factors is illustrated by considering the relationship between the cost of migration in relation to fecundity and the advantages and disadvantages of schooling, a phenomenon hypothesized to favour the evolution of migration.

The development of migration itself may seem like it may take a heavy toll, however, this is not the case as Alerstam, Hedenstrom and Akesson (2003) show.  They also indicate that migration should not be seen as an isolated behavior or mechanism but migration is “an extension of general seasonal adaptations in movement, homing, metabolism etc”.   It is also noted that migratory behavior is not a conserved behavior either and is linked to resource exploitation, breeding, disparity between survival and breeding grounds,  and so forth.   These similarties are seen across taxa with variation (which the article includes eels in their consideration of migration).  Alerstam et al. also note that the eel migration is aided by currents although the energetic cost of the travel is fairly low.  This was previously shown by Castonguay and McCleave  (1987) which showed that Anguilla anguilla stay in the Gulf Stream on their travel to Europe.

The misconception that the eels travel from the same exact spot from their spawning grounds to some exact spot close to Europe and back to the same exact spot is elementary and inaccurate.  Here is the variation in their journey:



The long-distance trek of Anguilla Anguilla is quite amazing and it may not be know exactly why their spawning grounds are so far away â€" however, as research has shown it may have built up distance over a period of time and is directly to their reproduction.  Takaomi, Limbong, Otake & Tsukamoto (2001) conclude that this is this may indeed be the case, stating:

…ancestral eels most probably underwent diadromous migration from local short-distance movements in complex currents in tropical coastal waters to the long-distant migrations characteristic of present-day temperate eels, which has been well-established as occurring in subtropical gyres in both hemispheres.

Which is later expounded upon in another article the following year by Tsukamoto, Aoyama & Miller (2002) stating:

…the large-scale migration of temperate eels probably evolved from local migrations of tropical eels as a result of long-distance dispersal of leptocephali from spawning sites in tropical waters of low latitude to temperate growth habitats at higher latitudes.

Specifically, Tsukamoto & Aoyama (1998) conclude that the tropical origins of the eels were somewhere around the Western Pacific, close to modern-day Indonesia and their clade originating around 10 million years ago.

Now, the problem with wanting to show mutation is responsible for a particular behavior is (as you should know) very difficult since behaviors are not governed by the dynamic of one gene, one trait/state.  Genetic roles can be shown and have been in the migration of animals including the eels along with environmental cues to imprinting (Westin, 2003). And the alternative idea which you propose is lacking in any substantiation or refutation of the currently presented data.  It is known, however, that no mutation is a requirement for the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and therefore makes it an integral part of the evolutionary process as I’ve stated before.  Mutations lead to genetic variants  --> natural selection acts upon these variants --> the selected traits grow throughout the population and may become indicative of that organism.  It also must be kept in mind that most mutations are effective neutral to the organism â€" that is they do not confer any real selective advantage or disadvantage.

There is definitive evidence for a major role for genetics in migratory behavior, along with environmental cues (electromagnetic fields in this case) and learning (imprinting â€" which can be shown to be disrupted as in the article from Westin).

As for “instinct” this too is the product of variation and selection.  Did anyone teach you how to suck on a nipple when you were a baby? No, that fixed action pattern already existed and has even been observed in vivo prenatally  â€" obviously a beneficial trait to have.  Another example is the innate drive to procreate or at least engage in the activity thereof.  However, these instincts can be modified by experiential learning (conditioning) or found in variation in which a particular genotype may not exhibit the usual innate behavior â€" in such an instance without some intervention this would be bad for that particular individual.

There is ample evidence for a completely naturalistic and evolutionary explanation for migration behavior in the example of the eels.

NOW, where is the evidence of for the “intelligence” alternative?  Outside of empirical evidence all you have is conjecture as the claim of sound logic doesn’t not float with your proposition at all as the argument you have presented, as I showed previously, is fallacious.

You have no evidence and only flawed logic for an argument â€" so why is it you cling to this idea so?

References:

Alerstam, T., Hedenstrom, A. &  Akesson, S. (2003). Long-distance migration: evolution and determinants.  Oikos, 103, 247-260.

Berthold, P. (1999). A comprehensive theory for the evolution, control and adaptability of avian migration.  Ostrich, 70, 1-11.

Castonguay, M.& McCleave, J. (1987). Vertical distributions, diel and ontogenetic  vertical migrations and net avoidance of leptocephali of Anguilla and other common species in the Sargasso Sea.  Journal of Plankton Research 9, 195-214.

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.

Levy, O., Appelbaum, L., Leggat, W., Gothlif, Y., Hayward, D., Miller, D. et al. (2007). Light-Responsive Cryptochromes from a Simple Multicellular Animal, the Coral Acropora millepora.  Science, 318, 467-470.

Liedvogel, M., Feenders, G., Wada, K., Troje, N., Jarvis, E. & Mouritsen, H. (2007). Lateralized activation of cluster N in the brains of migratory songbirds.  European Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 1166-1173.

Moller, A. (2001). Heritability of arrival date in a migratory bird.  Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 268, 203-206.

Mouritsen, H., Feenders, G., Liedvogel, M., Wada, K., & Jarvis, E. (2005) Night-vision brain area in migratory songbirds. Proceedings of the  National Academy of Sciences,  102, 8339â€"8344.

Roff, D. (1988). The evolution of migration and some life history parameters in marine fishes.  Environmental Biology of Fishes, 22, 133-146.

Takaomi, A., Limbong, D., Otake, T. & Tsukamoto, K. (2001). Recruitment mechanisms of tropical eels Anguilla spp. and implications for the evolution of oceanic migration in the genus Anguilla.  Marine Ecology Progress Series, 216, 253-264.

Tsukamoto, K. & Aoyama, J. (1998). Evolution of freshwater eels of the genus Anguilla: a probable scenario.  Environmental Biology of Fishes, 52, 139-148.

Tsukamoto, K., Aoyama, J. & Miller, M. (2002). Migration, speciation, and the evolution of diadromy in anguillid eels.   Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 59, 1989-1998.

Van der Zee, E., Havekes, R., Barf, R., Hut, R., Nijholt, I., Jacobs, E. et al. (2008). Circadian time-place learning in mice depends on Cry genes.  Current Biology, 18, 844-848.

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

Westin, L. (2003). Migration failure in stocked eels Anguilla Anguilla.  Marine Ecology Progress Series, 254, 307-311.
Wood, P. and Partridge, J. C. (1993) Opsin substitution induced in retinal rods of the eel (Anguilla anguilla (L.)): a model for G-protein-linked receptors.  Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 254, 227-232.

Yasuo, S., Watanabe, M., Tsukada, A., Takagi, T., Iigo, M., Shimada, K. et al. (2004). Photoinducible Phase-Specific Light Induction of Cry1 Gene in the Pars Tuberalis of Japanese Quail.  Endocrinology, 145, 1612-1616.

[McQ]

Don't bother. I don't see any reason to continue with this little game of Messenger's. He is not the least bit serious and has already received an official warning in another thread for doing essentially the same thing he is doing here. No responses to his inane banter are necessary, and go against the good advice to not feed the trolls.

I disagree ... if he is allowed to post such drivel then he must be opposed. It's important.

If you want to end it then ban him.

Kyu

Well, if I thought that he believed the stuff he was posting, I'd agree completely with you, Kyu. After reading all of his posts, I'm beginning to see a pattern that indicates he's just trolling, and doesn't merit serious time or consideration. He's been warned, and if he shapes up, then I'll be happy to change my opinion of him. I was simply suggesting to oldschool that he not bother to go to all the effort, especially since it was frustrating to him.

[oldschooldoc]

Don't bother. I don't see any reason to continue with this little game of Messenger's. He is not the least bit serious and has already received an official warning in another thread for doing essentially the same thing he is doing here. No responses to his inane banter are necessary, and go against the good advice to not feed the trolls.

I disagree ... if he is allowed to post such drivel then he must be opposed. It's important.

If you want to end it then ban him.

Kyu

Well, if I thought that he believed the stuff he was posting, I'd agree completely with you, Kyu. After reading all of his posts, I'm beginning to see a pattern that indicates he's just trolling, and doesn't merit serious time or consideration. He's been warned, and if he shapes up, then I'll be happy to change my opinion of him. I was simply suggesting to oldschool that he not bother to go to all the effort, especially since it was frustrating to him.

Thanks McQ. He is very frustrating, I have patience, but some people can really get make want to... I won't go there.

Kyu, I do see your point on why he needs to be opposed and I would really enjoy seeing you do so. If anyone can eloquently, and with the patience in light of Messenger, put into words how fin-to-feet evolution is possible it is you.

[SSY]

Dear messenger

you say that evolution ( or parts there of ) can be dissproved with facts, please, post these facts ina  complete and unabridged manner.

Also, you say evolution is guided, can you show us who/what is guiding with objective evidence of its existance? can you suggest a mechanism for this guidance? By putting forward the hypothesis that god guides evolution, you have saddled yourself with the burden of proof. Your current arguments have amounted to " I dont know how eels navigate, therefore, something must be guiding them, therefor its god guiding them". For someone who claims to be a logician, you really have a long way to go. Interecpting the communications between god and an eel would be sufficent proof for me to beleive that gods guides them. until then, it could be zeus, odin or the flying spaghetti monster.

Or, if you are really wacky, it could be the eel remembering the direction and strength of the magnetic field on its journey from the spawning ground, then simply tracing that back when it feels randy enough to breed. Your assertion that an eel places anywhere, in any ocean will find its way back to its home spawning point is false, eels from one spawn travel out of it together, live in the same area through adolesence and then return to spawn. Taking an eel from the coast of africa to the coast of south america in a jet would not allow it to find its way back to africa.

[curiosityandthecat]

Dear messenger

you say that evolution ( or parts there of ) can be dissproved with facts, please, post these facts ina  complete and unabridged manner.

Also, you say evolution is guided, can you show us who/what is guiding with objective evidence of its existance? can you suggest a mechanism for this guidance? By putting forward the hypothesis that god guides evolution, you have saddled yourself with the burden of proof. Your current arguments have amounted to " I dont know how eels navigate, therefore, something must be guiding them, therefor its god guiding them". For someone who claims to be a logician, you really have a long way to go. Interecpting the communications between god and an eel would be sufficent proof for me to beleive that gods guides them. until then, it could be zeus, odin or the flying spaghetti monster.

Or, if you are really wacky, it could be the eel remembering the direction and strength of the magnetic field on its journey from the spawning ground, then simply tracing that back when it feels randy enough to breed. Your assertion that an eel places anywhere, in any ocean will find its way back to its home spawning point is false, eels from one spawn travel out of it together, live in the same area through adolesence and then return to spawn. Taking an eel from the coast of africa to the coast of south america in a jet would not allow it to find its way back to africa.

He's a troll. Don't worry yourself.