Evidence 2 - Why (Non intelligent) Evolution is impossible?

[Kyuuketsuki]

You really, really don't understand evolution do you.

Given that this is little more than a transitional fossils denial I will simply post another of my articles for you to avoid (since that seems to be your speciality):
 know you want to avoid this so go on ... have fun because you know I am going to enjoy hounding you for it  
Kyu

Thanks, but you are answering an unasked question

No I don't think I was.

Answer the point made!

Kyu

[SSY]

Messenger, you are asking for fossils of creatures with mutations that weren’t selected by nature, i.e., an early human with 20 fingers. It is not the case that nature somehow realised it wanted 5 fingered humans and selected the protohumans that had 5 fingers.

I'm sure there were a few freak mutations of 20 fingered proto-humans. However, these did not survive perhaps due to selection pressures (their hands, while wonderfully dextrous, were not rugged enough to survive on the African plains for example). Modern humans may get along great with 20 fingers if the trait ever appeared, imagine the penmanship, the typing speed, and flute playing abilities. However, back then, 20 fingers may not have been the best solution, so any people that were born with 20 fingers most likely died and never passed on genes. There was such a massive scarcity of 20 fingered people, lets, for arguments sake say, 1 in a million, and so few animals are fossilised, lets again say, 1 in a million, that the odds of ever finding one of these freaks is really, astronomically low.

This is at least how i interpret your question, the phrasing you often employ is confusing.

N.B. I also wanted to comment on the high calibre of posts in this thread, kyu, squid et al. It makes me proud to associate myself with such upstanding and well educated atheists.

[Kyuuketsuki]

N.B. I also wanted to comment on the high calibre of posts in this thread, kyu, squid et al. It makes me proud to associate myself with such upstanding and well educated atheists.

Thanks, I'll be here all week ... all contributions welcome

Kyu

[Messenger]

But, what you seem to want is a specimen which is "deformed" or the like which was not beneficial to the selection of that phenotype.  If this is what exactly your wanting then your wanting what is referred to as a pathological specimen.  Then how about a pathological Psittacosaurus with a shorter and stouter fibula which was concluded that the dinosaur could have been impeded but still able to walk (Lu, Kobayashi, Lee & Ji, 2007).  Also pathological dinosaurian eggs have been found from in situ clutches (Jackson, Garrido, Schmitt, Chiappe, Dingus & Loope, 2004).  Or how about an Allosaurus with odd spur formations upon some ribs, bone growth on the 13th dorsal vertebrae amongst other items listed upon this specimen (some abnormalities were determined to be from trauma) (Hanna, 2002).  Or specimens of sauropods with fused vertebrae (Rothschild & Berman, 1991).

Thanks Squid, this is exactly what I was looking for
Your post here proves:
1-That all people who selected option 3 in the pool, don't have a clue about Evolution
2-That you agree with me that Evolution if existed is not intelligent, i.e. selecting fit species out of many unfit ones

Now to the challenge
According to the assumption that it is not controlled or intelligent, such deformation or pathological specimen must outnumber all the fit ones by orders of magnitudes,
Because for example if you play on a Chess board play unintelligently ; your false moves must be much more than correct ones
but if you play 90% correct; then you are intelligent, even if only 10% you still have some intelligence

Do we find this in the world? Noooo
How about legs facing upwards, or downwards, or left leg is a leg and the right is a fin, etc.

Those things does not exist at all, and if very small amount of deformed species are found it means that it is deformed i.e. abnormal by external factors or it have benefits but we don't know it

[Kyuuketsuki]

Now to the challenge
According to the assumption that it is not controlled or intelligent, such deformation or pathological specimen must outnumber all the fit ones by orders of magnitudes,
Because for example if you play on a Chess board play unintelligently ; your false moves must be much more than correct ones
but if you play 90% correct; then you are intelligent, even if only 10% you still have some intelligence

Do we find this in the world? Noooo
How about legs facing upwards, or downwards, or left leg is a leg and the right is a fin, etc.

Those things does not exist at all, and if very small amount of deformed species are found it means that it is deformed i.e. abnormal by external factors or it have benefits but we don't know it

And again you are wrong because the "unfit" are not selected and if they are as unfit as you imply they wouldn't get past first base ... fossilisation is NOT a common process. In addition you also ignore that all species except first life and end-branch species are transitional ... but then if you'd bothered to read my first response to you in this thread you'd already know that but you're not, since you're not interested in answering you're challengers just spewing your crap across these forums!

Kyu

[Messenger]

And again you are wrong because the "unfit" are not selected and if they are as unfit as you imply they wouldn't get past first base ... fossilisation is NOT a common process.

Then you you should vote "yet to be found" as Squid did find few  :brick:

Got it?

[Asmodean]

So where are all those (unfit) ones? I mean here with un-uniform deformations like one leg facing up and the other is not a leg at all  

Neanderthals. Apparently, they were pretty much unfit in the long run. There are hundreds and thousands of other examples of species that came to a dead end.

EDIT: If you are looking for high degrees of weirdness, siamese twins are a fine example. Or people born with both sets of reproductive organs (to varying degrees) or anything of the sort. Such things can be found in the animal kingdom as well, but the weirder they get, the harder it is for them to make it on their own or as a part of a society. The strongest, the most adaptable and the best made survive. And those stronger still survive them in turn.

[curiosityandthecat]

So where are all those (unfit) ones? I mean here with un-uniform deformations like one leg facing up and the other is not a leg at all  :brick:

[McQ]

And again you are wrong because the "unfit" are not selected and if they are as unfit as you imply they wouldn't get past first base ... fossilisation is NOT a common process.

Then you you should vote "yet to be found" as Squid did find few  :brick:

Got it?

This is your first day back and you are already trying to get banned, Messenger? Fine by me. It's much easier to ban you for the same violations you keep performing than it is to read your drivel. You continue to illustrate that you simply have no idea whatsoever what evolution is, what natural selection is, what artificial selection is, or what genetics is (biology, geology, physics, blah-blah-blah). Even your analogies aren't accurate.  

This is an official warning for you to stop obfuscating. You are like one giant Non sequitur. You ran out of chances the instant you began posting the same claptrap. No more. The next ban will be six months, then it will be permanent. Your only reply to this message had better be by illustrating, via your actions, that you will engage in rational, scientific discourse.

Refer to the following post as the reason for this warning. It is but one piece of evidence and it's the only reason I need to administer the warning, despite that you've already provided more than this. It will not be debated. If you don't like it, you may appeal directly to the forum administrator. Any communication to me other than strict compliance with what I have written as your only option will result in immediate banning.

But, what you seem to want is a specimen which is "deformed" or the like which was not beneficial to the selection of that phenotype.  If this is what exactly your wanting then your wanting what is referred to as a pathological specimen.  Then how about a pathological Psittacosaurus with a shorter and stouter fibula which was concluded that the dinosaur could have been impeded but still able to walk (Lu, Kobayashi, Lee & Ji, 2007).  Also pathological dinosaurian eggs have been found from in situ clutches (Jackson, Garrido, Schmitt, Chiappe, Dingus & Loope, 2004).  Or how about an Allosaurus with odd spur formations upon some ribs, bone growth on the 13th dorsal vertebrae amongst other items listed upon this specimen (some abnormalities were determined to be from trauma) (Hanna, 2002).  Or specimens of sauropods with fused vertebrae (Rothschild & Berman, 1991).

Thanks Squid, this is exactly what I was looking for
Your post here proves:
1-That all people who selected option 3 in the pool, don't have a clue about Evolution
2-That you agree with me that Evolution if existed is not intelligent, i.e. selecting fit species out of many unfit ones

Now to the challenge
According to the assumption that it is not controlled or intelligent, such deformation or pathological specimen must outnumber all the fit ones by orders of magnitudes,
Because for example if you play on a Chess board play unintelligently ; your false moves must be much more than correct ones
but if you play 90% correct; then you are intelligent, even if only 10% you still have some intelligence

Do we find this in the world? Noooo
How about legs facing upwards, or downwards, or left leg is a leg and the right is a fin, etc.

Those things does not exist at all, and if very small amount of deformed species are found it means that it is deformed i.e. abnormal by external factors or it have benefits but we don't know it

[Kylyssa]

So where are all those (unfit) ones? I mean here with un-uniform deformations like one leg facing up and the other is not a leg at all  

Got it?

Two words for you - bilateral symmetry.

The more symmetrical a creature is, the more likely it will reproduce.  However there are animals which have turned asymmetry to their advantage.  

Many species of crabs have two different sized pincers.  Sometimes the claws are even differently shaped.  This allows the crab to use its big claw as a shield for his vulnerable parts while leaving his little claw free to fight with.  In this case an asymmetrical result from a mutated gene was a success and that crab got to stay alive until adulthood and make lots of teeny tiny baby crabs carrying his genes.  

So there's your "deformation" - the freakishly big claw of a crab.  

And no, I don't know why I keep feeding the troll.  I feed the squirrels on my balcony, too, and they pee on my roommate's little plastic table.  I just can't help myself, I guess.

[Faithless]

It's obvious that Messenger is a complete and total moron.  He has neither the intelligence nor the education to even understand the excellent information presented here and in many other threads.  This is why he keeps on spamming the same old ridiculous, tired, debunked arguments.  It's the only thing he can understand, so he hangs onto it tooth and nail.  I was brought up to feel sorry for morons, not argue with them.

Messenger, I am truly sorry for you.  I can't even imagine going through life with such a big paper bag on your head and only a tiny little hole cut in it so there's a little light, and then believing that tiny bit of light is from a supernatural fairy in the sky because that's all your tiny little brain is able to comprehend.  It must be like living in Plato's cave but actually refusing the chance to go out into the light.  And that's truly sad.  To think that a living, breathing being with all the powers of intellect that evolved over millions of years to produce a creature that could actually discover and comprehend some of the mysteries of the universe willfully and joyfully throws all that potential out the window is astounding.  It blows the mind.

So don't argue with this guy.  Walk away and give him the only thing he's ever intellectually earned:  pity.

[Kyuuketsuki]

And again you are wrong because the "unfit" are not selected and if they are as unfit as you imply they wouldn't get past first base ... fossilisation is NOT a common process.

Then you you should vote "yet to be found" as Squid did find few

You're so hilarious ... oh wait, you're not funny at all. I have no plan to vote in your stupid poll at all.

So where are all those (unfit) ones? I mean here with un-uniform deformations like one leg facing up and the other is not a leg at all   Got it?

Oh I get it ... that's you making the world a better place by slamming what little brain you have against a brick wall right?

I repeat:

Fossilisation is NOT a common process. In addition you also ignore that all species except first life and end-branch species are transitional ... but then if you'd bothered to read my first response to you in this thread you'd already know that but you're not, since you're not interested in answering you're challengers just spewing your crap across these forums!

Kyu

[Messenger]

EDIT: If you are looking for high degrees of weirdness, siamese twins are a fine example. Or people born with both sets of reproductive organs (to varying degrees) or anything of the sort. Such things can be found in the animal kingdom as well, but the weirder they get, the harder it is for them to make it on their own or as a part of a society. The strongest, the most adaptable and the best made survive. And those stronger still survive them in turn.

This is exactly what I mean (you are the second one to understand, good boy)

If you claim that things evolved from 1 to 123456789
Then at stage 123 we should find 123A, 123B, 123C and only very few of 1234 (because 1234 is the correct/intelligent path)

Your examples are wrong as they did not go through generations
If you can get me an animal (along with his few generations) with one leg facing upwards and the other is not a leg at all (something wired maybe a ball), then I can beleive that mutation caused evolution

But if you can not, you have only 2 choices
1-Evolution happened but intelligently (i.e. with a plan to evolve as it is now)
2-Evolution did not happen at all

[Messenger]

The more symmetrical a creature is, the more likely it will reproduce.  However there are animals which have turned asymmetry to their advantage.  

I agree with that, all of those will survive, but the other should have survived then distinct
But sorry we can not find it, did Theists hide them  :pop:

[Kylyssa]

The more symmetrical a creature is, the more likely it will reproduce.  However there are animals which have turned asymmetry to their advantage.  

I agree with that, all of those will survive, but the other should have survived then distinct
But sorry we can not find it, did Theists hide them  :pop:

What are you talking about?  Plenty of crabs which are symmetrical exist and everything between crabs with giant, bizarre looking dominant claws and crabs with identically sized claws exist.  The descendants from the common ancestor (crabs with symmetrical claws)have diverged after a strange mutation (asymmetrical claws) which survived.  Both still exist.  Both the original format (symmetrical claws) and the mutated format (asymmetrical claws) exist right now in a multitude of variations.

You can't find them because you are too busy looking at a piece of fiction to look in the oceans, lakes, and streams.  That is the inherent problem with religion.  Religion is the policy of killing curiosity.  No one may look at the world and universe around them, they must look in the book or ask a person who makes a tax free living from having studied the book intensely.  There's a real world out here.  Try looking at it before making an ass of yourself by saying there are no original forms that have survived and descended along with mutated forms that have survived and born offspring through thousands and thousands of generations.

There are fossil records of all sorts of species that didn't work out.  As to finding fossil records of individual, one time only mutations - do you honestly think that everything that lives becomes fossilized?  Every single, individual organism becomes a fossil, really?  The failures get eaten and digested and at least 99.9999999999% of all living things don't become fossils.  Fossilization is a weird fluke.  It's not like some museum curator preserving one of each variation found in nature.  Fossilization is caused by weird accidents of nature that occur maybe one in a hundred million times.  And then the fossil must last through climate change and millions of years of  wear and tear by the elements.