Why Evolution is not true?

[bowmore]

What I'm asking for, should be the norm in Fossil record, but sadly you can not find even one

You say that if evolution is true, the fossil record should form a tree of species, with some branches that end at some point in the past?

But, then that is exactly what we do find in the fossil record.

[Kyuuketsuki]

An unintelligent Evolution is too ridiculous to be even discussed

An intelligent Messenger is too ridiculous to be discussed!

Bored now!

Kyu

[Messenger]

What I'm asking for, should be the norm in Fossil record, but sadly you can not find even one

You say that if evolution is true, the fossil record should form a tree of species, with some branches that end at some point in the past?

But, then that is exactly what we do find in the fossil record.

This not what I mean
The existing tree (iff it is really) is forming a sequence for development

For Evolution to be unintelligent, is should includes all weir things that does not develop into something beneficial
You claim that this happened over Billions of years and Billions of Mutations, where is that?

It is a bit complicated to see the difference, Fossil records are showing a very intelligent development or no development at all but not an uncontrolled one

I'm still looking for my animal with one leg facing upwards and the other ends with a football shaped hand  

[bowmore]

For Evolution to be unintelligent, is should includes all weir things that does not develop into something beneficial

You are the one to claim that these should be a majority, which is not what evolution claims.
Natural selection prevents unfit mutations to develop. Add to this the extremely small percentage of a population that actually gets fossilized,
then it is no wonder that such individuals are absent in the fossil record.

It is a bit complicated to see the difference, Fossil records are showing a very intelligent development or no development at all but not an uncontrolled one

But evolution is controlled, by natural selection.

I'm still looking for my animal with one leg facing upwards and the other ends with a football shaped hand  

As I pointed out before : we can see such unfit individuals alive today.

[Messenger]

which is not what evolution claims.

Do you mean that for each transitional stage
The number of fit mutation is greater than the number of unfit ones?

But evolution is controlled, by natural selection.

sorry, I mean mutation or changes
Natural selection does not control the changes itself, but controls its population over the years

We can see such unfit individuals alive today.

Squid, borough very few examples, where are the rest?

[bowmore]

which is not what evolution claims.

Do you mean that for each transitional stage
The number of fit mutation is greater than the number of unfit ones?

Nope.
Note that most mutations are neutral. The number of unmutated, neutral and beneficial combined is larger than the detrimental.
I mean that individuals with detrimental mutations are a low percentage of a total population as they are simply being outbred. Note also that the largest part of the DNA gets copied without mutations.
An individual with one leg growing in the wrong direction, is likely to get eaten (can't run away as fast) before being able to produce offspring. For this one individual with the detrimental mutation there are many more in it's generation without detrimental mutations, that do produce offspring.

But evolution is controlled, by natural selection.

sorry, I mean mutation or changes
Natural selection does not control the changes itself, but controls its population over the years

So you do realize that you must take natural selection into account if you are to make predictions about populations, based on data of mutations?

We can see such unfit individuals alive today.

Squid, borough very few examples, where are the rest?

You're the one claiming they should form a majority.

[Messenger]

which is not what evolution claims.

Do you mean that for each transitional stage
The number of fit mutation is greater than the number of unfit ones?

Nope.

Then you agree that they should be more

I mean that individuals with detrimental mutations are a low percentage of a total population as they are simply being outbred.

This is true if we look to the whole populations, but for each stage the ridiculous ones must be more

An individual with one leg growing in the wrong direction, is likely to get eaten (can't run away as fast) before being able to produce offspring.[/quote]Wrong, because you only think about the final stage of development
You must think only about transitions
If an animal with a leg in its first stage survived
Another animal with my example in its first stages, must have survived too

[Kyuuketsuki]

An individual with one leg growing in the wrong direction, is likely to get eaten (can't run away as fast) before being able to produce offspring.

Wrong, because you only think about the final stage of development
You must think only about transitions
If an animal with a leg in its first stage survived
Another animal with my example in its first stages, must have survived too[/quote]

You really have no idea how evolution works do you? In order to have a limb evolve in the wrong direction it would take millions of years (hundreds of thousands of generations) of unfavourable selection ... IOW a near impossibility. And in essence that is your problem ... you don't discuss the theory of evolution, you don't talk about the theory of evolution, you don't criticise the theory of evolution, you do these things entirely based on the creationist cartoon caricature theory of evolution.

Again risking moderator wrath I'll say it plain ... you're an idiot, go and learn some science.

Kyu

[bowmore]

Then you agree that they should be more

No. Again : read my post.

This is true if we look to the whole populations, but for each stage the ridiculous ones must be more

No. For the reason I stated in my previous post.

An individual with one leg growing in the wrong direction, is likely to get eaten (can't run away as fast) before being able to produce offspring.

Wrong, because you only think about the final stage of development
You must think only about transitions
If an animal with a leg in its first stage survived
Another animal with my example in its first stages, must have survived too

Only if the mutation proved to be not detrimental in earlier stages, or natural selection would have weeded them out.

[Squid]

You have an incorrect idea of how natural selection operates -  there is no "unselection".  Selection is a process - a consequence of the interaction of an organism with its environment.  As for your fossils, I gave you several examples of pathological specimens.  

I have no problem with that!

Because of the nature of what you're exactly wanting - you know it's ridiculous

Actually it is ridiculous not to expect ridiculous  :eek:

Because, such drastic changes are most likely going to shorten the lifespan of that organism - it may not be able to survive to even close to maturity.  In a population where one must compete for resources a small mammal with a "backward leg" isn't going to survive very long if even past being a newborn.  You assume that an organism with such a drastic and obviously detrimental mutation will survive to even developmental maturity.

You don't get it at all!
First, it seems that you believe that they existed but did not survive
Second, if you assume that, how do you expect transitional creatures (which you claim that they exist for sure) to survive

I'll give you an example
You claim that some Dinosaurs evolved into birds
We have
A-A Dinosaur that fits its environment
Z-A Bird that fits its environment

Between them (You claim) that we have B, C, D, .... (Transitional forms)
for example C was selected over B but was unfavored Vs. D
So C lived (enough to evolve and to be fossilized)

Till now I don't have a problem

But the claim that C came unintelligent, means that there was $,@,^,& (Which include my earlier example)
They should have lived periods similar to C (less and more as it is uncontrolled)
not only that, some of them must have evolved into more ridiculous things like C#@
As the unintelligent options must be much more, taking into considerations that transitional forms are in Billions (As Claimed)

What I'm asking for, should be the norm in Fossil record, but sadly you can not find even one

An unintelligent Evolution is too ridiculous to be even discussed

No, your claim is ridiculous, I've explained to you why.  I cannot make it anymore simple.  And, no, there is NO logic behind your conclusion.  No matter how many times you repeat yourself.  I'm done with your game.

[curiosityandthecat]

[Kylyssa]

You don't get it at all!
First, it seems that you believe that they existed but did not survive
Second, if you assume that, how do you expect transitional creatures (which you claim that they exist for sure) to survive

I'll give you an example
You claim that some Dinosaurs evolved into birds
We have
A-A Dinosaur that fits its environment
Z-A Bird that fits its environment

Between them (You claim) that we have B, C, D, .... (Transitional forms)
for example C was selected over B but was unfavored Vs. D
So C lived (enough to evolve and to be fossilized)

Till now I don't have a problem

But the claim that C came unintelligent, means that there was $,@,^,& (Which include my earlier example)
They should have lived periods similar to C (less and more as it is uncontrolled)
not only that, some of them must have evolved into more ridiculous things like C#@
As the unintelligent options must be much more, taking into considerations that transitional forms are in Billions (As Claimed)

What I'm asking for, should be the norm in Fossil record, but sadly you can not find even one

An unintelligent Evolution is too ridiculous to be even discussed

Oh, you're talking about transitional forms!  The forms between dinosaur and bird or between land mammal and sea mammal or the forms between fish and amphibian.

Transitional forms are not unfit.  They are steps along the way.  A transitional form is a little more fit than its predecessor.  So you're wondering where the things like whales with legs are.  They are in the fossil record.  They weren't unfit, they were marvelously fit, the next step along the ladder was just even more fit and took over their niche.

If you think of mammals as highly evolved, having gone through many complex changes from life's origin, this should be easy to explain.  If you keep a sessile invertebrate, such as a coral, as a pet, it's really delicate.  It needs very strict environmental parameters to live, temperature variations, unstable PH, toxins, variation in specific gravity - all can lead to death.  It dies very easily from even the slightest change.  

Then we come to invertebrates such as snails, clams, and other mollusks.  They can handle more changeable environments than corals, slight variations in temperature, specific gravity, PH and chemical makeup of the water or the presence of some toxins will not kill them.

Then we come to vertebrates such as your pet puffer fish.  They can handle pretty wide swings of PH, temperatures as low as 62 degrees for short periods, a higher degree of environmental toxins, unstable chemical makeup of water, and they can handle water with a specific gravity between 1.009 and 1.32 with little harm.

Now we've got a pet toad.  He can handle temperatures from freezing to over 100 degrees.  He can flop around on dry land.  He's is even sturdier than a puffer fish.  He can eat all sorts of critters but mostly insects.

Now we have a pet bird, it can handle even more environmental stresses and it can eat insects and plant material, too.

Toughest of all we have a pet rat, a mammal.  He can handle temperatures below freezing, he can eat almost anything, environmental toxins need to be horrible to prevent his survival and reproduction, and he is tough as hell.

We could argue that each of these creatures is more able to survive hostile conditions than the previous creature but absolutely none of them are unfit.  They each have their ecological niche (though we are rapidly destroying corals environmental niches) and their place.

A 'less evolved' creature between a dinosaur and a bird would not be unfit in any way, he'd either be just as fit as a dinosaur or a little more fit than a dinosaur.  If you have warm blooded dinosaurs in between reptiles and birds yet without feathers, they are more more versatile than cold-blooded dinosaurs.  If you have dinosaurs walking around with feathers but not flying, how does that make them unfit?  It doesn't, it would hold in their possibly primitive endothermic body heat to let them remain active in cooler temperatures and to survive colder temperatures.  And everything from possibly non-flight birds through flight birds would be equally or more fit than its predecessor.

And the lesson today, kids, is to look higher on the evolutionary ladder when buying pets, puppies are sturdier than goldfish.

[Kyuuketsuki]

And the lesson today, kids, is to look higher on the evolutionary ladder when buying pets, puppies are sturdier than goldfish.

Ah, but goldfish are sturdier (more fit) than puppies in 2 feet of water  

Kyu

[SSY]

But the claim that C came unintelligent, means that there was $,@,^,& (Which include my earlier example)
They should have lived periods similar to C (less and more as it is uncontrolled)
not only that, some of them must have evolved into more ridiculous things like C#@
As the unintelligent options must be much more, taking into considerations that transitional forms are in Billions (As Claimed)

I think this is where your understanding breaks down.

You seem to think the population of C creaures will produce lots of offspring, correct
Some will have disadvantages mutations, good so far!
the unfit offspring will reproduce and form their own populations, oh dear .

These unfit individuals will not live the same amount as the unmutated ( or neutrally mutated ) C creatures, they will die young or fail to pass their genes in some other way. So any of these creatures will die out and not form their own populations. The normal C type creatures will keep on living after the unfit ones have died and produce more C babies for many generations. In one of those generations, there will be a mutation that is helpful, after enough generations anyway. This mutation wil spread throughout the genepool until they all have it, and there are no c type creatures left. We now call the species D type creatures, and the cycle will repeat.

I'm glad kylyssa finaly seems to have figured out where you lost it, all credit to her.

[Messenger]

You seem to think the population of C creaures will produce lots of offspring, correct
Some will have disadvantages mutations, good so far!
the unfit offspring will reproduce and form their own populations, oh dear .

These unfit individuals will not live the same amount as the unmutated ( or neutrally mutated ) C creatures, they will die young or fail to pass their genes in some other way. So any of these creatures will die out and not form their own populations. The normal C type creatures will keep on living after the unfit ones have died and produce more C babies for many generations.

You are contradicting yourself
uncontrolled mutation means any thing, you only assume it is very good or very bad
Yes, some will die before breeding, but many will survive

Unintelligent means anything (under physical restrictions only) can happen