Why Evolution is not true?

[Messenger]

What science can know in the future is how they are doing it, not from where they get the information

So you say but you have yet to justify that beyond anything other than wishful thinking. [/quote]
This is by default as the information (Location) is outside
Then it must come from outside to inside
Do you know the diffirence between in and out  :raised:

Because of this science represents our best current understanding of the universe around us.
Now I know you'll try to find holes in that, I know you'll say it's wrong but the simple fact is that that is the way science is and like it or not evolution DOES represent our best current understanding and explanation

I don't have a problem with that
Your problem is that you assume Evolution (or the part about mutation) as science, even that it is not supported by facts or statistics or even logic

[Kyuuketsuki]

I don't have a problem with that
Your problem is that you assume Evolution (or the part about mutation) as science, even that it is not supported by facts or statistics or even logic

Yawn! Wrong again and if you'd actually bothered at all to answer my very first response in this thread you will see that I have COMPLETELY justified why evolution is science and you just saying it isn't is just you being an uneducated idiot (and if the Mods smack me down for that, so be it)!

Go away and learn some science!

Kyu

[Messenger]

Yawn! Wrong again and if you'd actually bothered at all to answer my very first response in this thread you will see that I have COMPLETELY justified why evolution is science and you just saying it isn't is just you being an uneducated idiot (and if the Mods smack me down for that, so be it)!

Considering the fossil record, Mutation is not the cause of anything (except destructing some individuals)

[Kyuuketsuki]

Yawn! Wrong again and if you'd actually bothered at all to answer my very first response in this thread you will see that I have COMPLETELY justified why evolution is science and you just saying it isn't is just you being an uneducated idiot (and if the Mods smack me down for that, so be it)!

Considering the fossil record, Mutation is not the cause of anything (except destructing some individuals)

Wrong! Mutation is a source of variation. Go and learn some science!

Kyu

[Messenger]

Mutation is a source of variation. Go and learn some science!

That is exactly your problem
Yes, it is a cause of variation
but it is
Destructive
Non-Evolving
Does not accumulate over generations

i.e. does not develop or evolve anything

[Asmodean]

but it is
Destructive
Non-Evolving
Does not accumulate over generations

So you say...  

[curiosityandthecat]

Topic title: "Why Evolution is not true?"

Answer: Trick question; it is.

[/thread]

[BadPoison]

Messenger, I refer you here:
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=2427
Check out the link posted in that thread. It's an excellent example of quantifiable research showing mutation as being directly responsible for a new beneficial trait.


Read it, and let me know what you think.

-Badpoison

[PipeBox]

Topic title: "Why Evolution is not true?"

Answer: Trick question; it is.

[/thread]

This.

Oh, and Messenger, it appears your views do not permit beneficial mutation.   To classify something as a beneficial mutation we would need two chronologically-close, proximally close fossils where one of them and only the one clearly led to further descent apart or without the unmutated group.  I cannot easily express how tall of an order that is.  We may have unearthed dozens of beneficially mutated fossils, but we will not know it unless the mutation is something that could not be produced by selective pressure and/or is very subtle without anything to compare it against.  We hardly have a perfect record of every organism that ever lived, but we certainly have enough to clearly draw evolutionary lines.   Put simply, the success stories blend in, whereas the failures are obvious.  Beneficial mutations are not likely to ever be gross changes in form, but something like a slightly thicker collar bone, which is damn hard to distinguish from either selective pressuring on a group or a previously-isolated dominant gene surfacing in a population (cousins come from 100 miles over and get busy).  Morphology isn't equipped to deal with mutations if they're suitably small, especially if they're beneficial.  If we could sample DNA from the majority of fossils, we'd have a crapton more evidence by now.

[strike:10vsvdpc]I could be wrong and there be a plethora of evidence no one has sourced for you yet, though, so I'll have a look around.[/strike:10vsvdpc]  Nevermind, it's already been sourced, and it's pretty solid evidence, in a very controlled environment.  Much easier to keep track of mutations in the lab than the fossil record, eh?  But what I said stands.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Mutation is a source of variation. Go and learn some science!

That is exactly your problem
Yes, it is a cause of variation
but it is
Destructive
Non-Evolving
Does not accumulate over generations

i.e. does not develop or evolve anything

No it isn't ... most mutations are simply a source of variation, Some are good, some are bad, many are in what is referred to as Junk DNA and as such are irrelevant at that time. Most relevant ones are probably bad but since mutation is NOT the only factor in evolution beneficial mutations tend to get carried forward and non-beneficial do not. But again, if you actually knew any science, actually bothered to find out what evolution was about you'd know this.

In the meantime here's another of my pre-prepared essays for you to ignore as you always do.

Harmful Mutations
Introduction
Young Earth creationists, as always attempting to disprove any theory that disputes their belief that life on Earth has evolved rather than be divinely created, fall like vultures on the supposition that all (or the majority of) mutations are harmful and thus, they claim, life must have been intelligently designed or guided.

However the very fact that we are here today and are not identical to our parents is a very simple refutation of this claim.

Discussion
Creationists declare that all mutations are harmful and that beneficial mutations are at best rare. They further note that all mutations are random. In their favour are examples of mutation such as sickle cell anaemia, muscular dystrophy, cystic fibrosis and cancer, and cancer syndromes and claim that no examples of beneficial human mutation have ever been described.

It is worth, briefly, describing the major mechanisms of evolution.

Natural selection does not create species but operates on already present variation within a population. It is mutation that is the primary agent that creates the variation though genetic recombination is also a significant factor.

Genes code how to construct proteins and the proteins produced act to carry out a specific function which can confer diversity of cell and/or organism type within a population, species or set of related species. From this it can be seen that mutation (a change in the genetic code) can cause organisms to change in terms of both their function and their form.

Creationists say that mutations can only be harmful but they are wrong. Mutations occur all the time (mainly during meiosis) where not only tiny changes occur but whole multi-protein producing genes sequences can be inserted forcing the rapid creation of new proteins with very different character. Most mutations are not harmful, they are neutral non-coding DNA and harmful changes (the majority outside of neutral ones) are discarded long before birth.

Mutational rate varies from 0.1% to 0.0000001% (Ridley 1993) so the average is approx. 0.0001%. If 1% are beneficial then the chance of them being beneficial is  0.000001% (1 in 100,000,000).  A given beneficial mutation will therefore arise only once per 100,000,000 individuals whilst detrimental or neutral mutation will arise only once per 1,000,000 individuals (Condor, 1998)

So how can such an adverse rate produce adaptations particularly when most of the changes are either harmful or have no effect? According to Condor (1998) the process is not completely random ... there are several mechanisms at work such as mutation, gene recombination, sexual selection, natural selection etc. and secondly selection is cumulative.

Whilst creationists are correct in stating that the vast majority of mutations are in fact harmful they fail to note that natural selection operates AGAINST harmful mutations immediately and discards them. Some however are beneficial and natural selection operates in favour of them and includes them into future generations as the raw material of future evolution.

Without mutation there would be no variability and no evolution.

Conclusion
Creationists, likening established life to a well-running complex biological machine, state that if it is subject to random alterations improvements could not occur and harm will almost certainly be caused to the organism.

However most mutations are not harmful, they are neutral non-coding DNA and those changes that are harmful are discarded long before birth ... as such these "mutational failures" are not evident in the fossil record. But rare mutations will confer advantage and such rare advantages occurring in massively parallel fashion across millions and millions of individuals in millions of millions of species is the force that provides evolution with its basic material.

Evolution discards the flawed mutations and accumulates the beneficial ones due to mechanisms like sex and natural selection.

References
"How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution", Boyce Rensberger (1997)
"Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution", Robyn Conder (1998)
"Biology 111: Evolution", Richard Fox (1998)
"The Evolution of Improved Fitness by random mutation plus selection", Edward E. Max (1999)
"Cell Biology" Ambrose & Easty, 2nd Ed. (1978)

Kyu

[Messenger]

most mutations are simply a source of variation, Some are good, some are bad, many are in what is referred to as Junk DNA and as such are irrelevant at that time. Most relevant ones are probably bad but since mutation is NOT the only factor in evolution beneficial mutations tend to get carried forward and non-beneficial do not.

This not the subject of this thread
Actually I agree that mutation can be good (but with very low probability)
My argument that mutation being the/a source of evolution is not proved at all, it is even against statistics

Remember that, I don't deny that Evolution happened (so don't bother to bring facts about changes)
I'm saying that iff it happened then it is intelligent and mutation has nothing to do with it

Can you prove me wrong  

[Messenger]

it appears your views do not permit beneficial mutation.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I believe it is possible

To classify something as a beneficial mutation we would need two chronologically-close, proximally close fossils where one of them and only the one clearly led to further descent apart or without the unmutated group.  I cannot easily express how tall of an order that is.  We may have unearthed dozens of beneficially mutated fossils, but we will not know it unless the mutation is something that could not be produced by selective pressure and/or is very subtle without anything to compare it against.

If we find this, it will be a clue about changes, not an evidence of mutation
Actually it has nothing to do/prove about mutation at all

[Squid]

Okay, let's try it this way.  What process gives rise to novel traits?

[SSY]

most mutations are simply a source of variation, Some are good, some are bad, many are in what is referred to as Junk DNA and as such are irrelevant at that time. Most relevant ones are probably bad but since mutation is NOT the only factor in evolution beneficial mutations tend to get carried forward and non-beneficial do not.

This not the subject of this thread
Actually I agree that mutation can be good (but with very low probability)
My argument that mutation being the/a source of evolution is not proved at all, it is even against statistics

Remember that, I don't deny that Evolution happened (so don't bother to bring facts about changes)
I'm saying that iff it happened then it is intelligent and mutation has nothing to do with it

Can you prove me wrong  

What?  In what way is mutation being beneficial against statistics? How else would new traits in the gene pool develop?

[Kylyssa]

Okay, let's try it this way.  What process gives rise to novel traits?

Excellent point.  That was what I was trying to express in my description of temperature-sensitive albinism in the other thread but I didn't phrase it this succinctly.  It's a novel trait, neither beneficial nor detrimental, which is caused by a mutation.  It's also something which would never be found in a fossil record due to the subtle nature of the difference.