Why Evolution is not true?

[Asmodean]

Please resize that wall-to-wall hanging of a signature to at least resemble a standard banner size.

[Messenger]

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

You again talking about changes, You should ask yourself this question!

I know that novel traits are created or developed by God for each species to fit its environment

You suggest that it
1-un-intelligently
2-developed
over time

I don't refute totally 2, but I'm saying that uncontrolled, un-intelligent is impossible
I proved my claim by the non-existence of the un-intelligent fossils,
and non existence of any evidence to support mutation, not even statistics

How to you explain that ?Get back to the main subject!

[Messenger]

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

That is the problem
You eliminated the option of intelligent developing before the discussion
Then claim that mutation is the only option, this is circular logic (i.e. false)

Then you want even to go further and use this as a refutation of God  

[curiosityandthecat]

Is anyone else getting bored with this thread?

I proved my claim by the non-existence of the un-intelligent fossils,
and non existence of any evidence to support mutation, not even statistics

Proving your claim to you is a far cry from proving it someone like, oh, an evolutionary biologist who has quite literally thousands, if not millions, of reasons why evolution can produce complex lifeforms, whereas you have only one reason why it cannot: you just can't believe it does.

You're missing the point of science: it enters with a question, looks at the evidence, and forms a conclusion. Wash, rinse, repeat. You are going into this with the conclusion, looking at the evidence, and rejecting that which does not mesh with your preconceived concept.

I'm officially done with this nonsense. I'm off to do something more productive, like clean my shower curtain rings.

[VanReal]

None, this is a fact of change not evolution
Species change but don't evolve

It is like saying as apples are red, then all red cars are made of apples  [/quote]

Is this a argument over terminology?  Change but not evolve?  The definition of evolution can be: evolution - development: a process in which something passes by degrees to a different stage (especially a more advanced or mature stage); "the development of his ideas took many years"; "the evolution of Greek civilization"; "the slow development of her skill as a writer" (according to wordnet.princeton.edu) so change occuring over time is evolution.  

So your statement above "Species change but don't evolve" means.....? what?

[Squid]

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

You again talking about changes, You should ask yourself this question!

I know that novel traits are created or developed by God for each species to fit its environment

You suggest that it
1-un-intelligently
2-developed
over time

I don't refute totally 2, but I'm saying that uncontrolled, un-intelligent is impossible
I proved my claim by the non-existence of the un-intelligent fossils,
and non existence of any evidence to support mutation, not even statistics

How to you explain that ?Get back to the main subject!

Negative Ghostrider.  Attempting to disprove what you think does not work does not support your idea by default - this is fallacious reasoning.  Your idea of "unintelligent fossils" is a bit silly.  I've explained earlier that why what you are asking for does not show up in the fossil record with the exception of pathological instances which I provided.  Here's how it works whether you like it or not:

Mutation provides the raw material for selection - mutation is well known, substantiated and supported empirically.  I also provided you with evidence showing that most mutations are NOT deleterious but NEUTRAL and not all mutations lead to a change in phenotype (this is a point I think you seem to neglect).  With the different alleles available in a population, natural selection works on the individuals of that population through the interaction of those organisms with their environment - selective pressures.  Also, as I've mentioned before, species and their environments are not static constructs (another point you seem to neglect in your proposal) and therefore what may have been "fit" at one point in time may not be as the environment changes or the population migrates and the like.  Those that are extremely maladapted for life such as the "backwards leg" organism you've referred to repeatedly will most likely not see themselves to be able to reproduce - it must be remember that just because an organism makes it to maturity, it does not insure that it will reproduce.

Just because a mutation appears does not automatically mean it will be harmful for the organism.  Most mutations are selectively neutral and may not even produce a morphological change to create a "backward leg".  However, it being selectively neutral doesn't mean it will stay selectively neutral as time goes on and selective pressures change.  For instance, the precursors to bipedalism have been traced far back into the Miocene apes, however the selection of these otherwise neutral items that lead to bipedalism were not seen until much later when a major shift began to occur in the climate changing the landscape.

Also, another point which would raise questions about an "intelligent" agent controlling such processes - HERVs (human endogenous retroviruses).  You see Messenger, our entire genome is about 8% viral.

Now, for your claim, what empirical evidence is there to support an "intelligence" being the culprit rather than mutation and selection?  I'd like to see the studies, the data which support your position.  And no, simply saying that the currently held theories in biology are wrong is not positive evidence of your contentions.

[SSY]

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

That is the problem
You eliminated the option of intelligent developing before the discussion
Then claim that mutation is the only option, this is circular logic (i.e. false)

Then you want even to go further and use this as a refutation of God  

If you wish to put the idea of intelligent design forward as a hypothesis, then you must support it with evidence. You have none of this evidence. Mutation is supported by lots of evidence.

I think mutation makes novel traits becuase the mechanism is well described in the theory, and it is backed up by countless examples. I disgard the notion of god doing it becuase there is o proposed mechanism and there is no evidence as to it ever happening.

I also did nto use this to refute god, you have a vivid imagination.

Furthermore, you did not back up your claim about statistics going against beneficial mutation. I would be interested to hear how you arrived at this conclusion

[Messenger]

If you wish to put the idea of intelligent design forward as a hypothesis, then you must support it with evidence. You have none of this evidence. Mutation is supported by lots of evidence.

I did not, this is the only logical option

I think mutation makes novel traits becuase the mechanism is well described in the theory, and it is backed up by countless examples. I disgard the notion of god doing it becuase there is o proposed mechanism and there is no evidence as to it ever happening.

Irrelevant, as if God exists, we have no way to know how he acts!

Furthermore, you did not back up your claim about statistics going against beneficial mutation. I would be interested to hear how you arrived at this conclusion

Even Evolutionists agree on this
Constructive mutations is way less than destructive ones

[Messenger]

Those that are extremely maladapted for life such as the "backwards leg" organism you've referred to repeatedly will most likely not see themselves to be able to reproduce - it must be remember that just because an organism makes it to maturity, it does not insure that it will reproduce.

This is statement has a lot of problems
-By saying it will not reproduce, you agree that it happened; Where are the fossils?
I'm asking for one fossil record out of billions with one leg facing upwards, and the other is not a leg at all  
-There is no relation between reproduction and leg mutations, it should survive for many generations, before Nature kill them (I mean unselect)
-By agreeing on the concept, then you must bring many bizarre mutation records for every species on the face of the earth
-You are imagining intelligent developing by an un intelligent cause, this is the clear contradiction in the theory

Now, for your claim, what empirical evidence is there to support an "intelligence" being the culprit rather than mutation and selection?

Selecting: yes but mutation: NO
Logic proves that it is intelligent

[Kyuuketsuki]

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

Then why did you mention it in the first place?

Actually I agree that mutation can be good (but with very low probability)

No evolutionist would disagree.

My argument that mutation being the/a source of evolution is not proved at all, it is even against statistics

As previously stated, mutation isn't the only source of variation.

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

And now you're back in fairy gah gah land ... there is no validatable evidence at all to support intelligent designer or the existence of an intelligent designer. It is no more or less than a religious POV.

Can you prove me wrong

No (it being rather difficult to test for the existence of a designer that won't come out & play or even leave a few analysable clues to its supposed existence) but I don't need to because it is YOU that is advancing the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM so it is YOU that must prove it!

Kyu

[Kyuuketsuki]

This is statement has a lot of problems
-By saying it will not reproduce, you agree that it happened; Where are the fossils?
I'm asking for one fossil record out of billions with one leg facing upwards, and the other is not a leg at all  
-There is no relation between reproduction and leg mutations, it should survive for many generations, before Nature kill them (I mean unselect)
-By agreeing on the concept, then you must bring many bizarre mutation records for every species on the face of the earth
-You are imagining intelligent developing by an un intelligent cause, this is the clear contradiction in the theory

You really are a moron with absolutely no idea how to debate aren't you? You've ALREADY had answers to this in the other thread where you asked the same tripe, not least of all from me:

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!

Now, for your claim, what empirical evidence is there to support an "intelligence" being the culprit rather than mutation and selection?

Selecting: yes but mutation: NO
Logic proves that it is intelligent

No, it doesn't ... you HAVE NOT proven the existence of an intelligent designer, you HAVE NOT supplied a single piece of validatable evidence ... please do so.

Kyu

[Kyuuketsuki]

None, this is a fact of change not evolution
Species change but don't evolve

It is like saying as apples are red, then all red cars are made of apples  :brick:

Kyu

[McQ]

None, this is a fact of change not evolution
Species change but don't evolve

It is like saying as apples are red, then all red cars are made of apples  :brick:

Kyu

Don't anyone wonder why I won't waste time with him. I banned him once for this blather, and will do so again without a second thought if this keeps up. I give you guys credit for trying initially, but I have to tell you, I saw this from the beginning and knew it would go nowhere. In every thread in which he participates, he shows an ocean of ignorance in all the necessary subjects germane to the discussions.

The only reason he is still here is because of his somewhat compliance with forum rules.

[Squid]

Those that are extremely maladapted for life such as the "backwards leg" organism you've referred to repeatedly will most likely not see themselves to be able to reproduce - it must be remember that just because an organism makes it to maturity, it does not insure that it will reproduce.

This is statement has a lot of problems
-By saying it will not reproduce, you agree that it happened; Where are the fossils?
I'm asking for one fossil record out of billions with one leg facing upwards, and the other is not a leg at all  
-There is no relation between reproduction and leg mutations, it should survive for many generations, before Nature kill them (I mean unselect)

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.  Because of the nature of what you're exactly wanting - you know it's ridiculous, if you do not understand why then you obviously must reexamine you presumptions.  Such extreme morphological changes are not conducive to survival to even maturity let alone survival to reproduce.  If you are correct, why don't we see more people walking around with Holt-Oram Syndrome - the result of a mutation of the TBX5 gene on chromosome 12 (Basson, Cowley, Solomon, Weissman, Poznanski, Traill et al., 1994; Tseng, Su, Lu, Jeng, Hsieh, Chen, 2007).

Source - Basson, C., Cowley, G., Solomon, S., Weissman, B., Poznanski, A., Traill, T. et al. (1994). The Clinical and Genetic Spectrum of the Holt-Oram Syndrome (Heart-Hand Syndrome). New England Journal of Medicine, 330, 885-891.

Tseng, Y., Su, Y., Lu, F., Jeng, S., Hsieh, W., Chen, C. et al. (2007). Holt-Oram syndrome with right lung agenesis caused by a de novo mutation in the TBX5 gene.  Amercian Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 143A, 1012-1014.



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.  Like I've tried to make you understand in the past, most mutations are neutral and there is no guarantee that a mutation will lead to a morphological change especially one as drastic as you want.  There is also a particular set of genes and associated genes that control or contribute to an organisms body plan - homeobox genes.

It seems your going off of misunderstanding of selection and mutations, a predetermined yet unsubstantiated claim (you have yet to provide empricial evidence - all you have done is claim "logic" supports the notion when your argument is primarily negative and a inaccurate one at that), and either refuse to or cannot understand the previous evidence given to you.  I cannot make you understand nor can I make you correct your incorrect ideas about mutation and selection no matter how much I post.  If you refuse to address directly all the previous evidence given to you then I'll others deal with you as this, in my opinion, is getting nowhere and attempting to educate you is a waste of my time.

If you believe there's an intelligent agent involved, fine, whatever helps you sleep at night, I really don't care.  I simply refuse to reject empirically validated scientific constructs based upon your silly idea of what you think a logical argument is.

[Messenger]

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