Evolution makes no sense

To everyone, please leave the sylistic issues out of the discussion.To Conspirator, you are welcome to post here only once every couple weeks if that is your wish, but please realize that lengthy absences are often interpreted as a cut-and-run, since this is a fairly common occurrence. We often get new members who launch lengthy broadsides only to never be heard from again. You have three replies to Message 27, and replying to those messages would probably help bring this thread back on topic.--------------------EvC Forum Administrator

Actually, I owe conspirator an apology, I didn't see his posts on page 2.Before I dive in, I'd like to see him show a bit more willing to get stuck in. A lot of people have cut & run lately, namely, Fred (again) & Peter Borger. A lot of time gets invested for nothing when this happens. VVVVV annoying.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-06-2002]

I want to see this plagiarism issue get settled first.[This message has been edited by gene90, 08-06-2002]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Conspirator:
[B]And I didn't copy and paste anything from my first lengthy post because that would be a little something called "plagerism" which is illegal.[/quote][/b]I, for one, am happy you are back.Now, your posts are freakishly like the posts gene found. Your posts are almost exact copies. This doesn't happen by chance. Someone is a plagarist. Are you the plagarist, or is it the people who wrote the articles gene found who are plagarizing you?

quote:

---

So no, I haven't left. I'll never leave. Deal with it. Get over it.

---

ahhh.... the sweet smell of hubris.....So come on now. I'm dealing with it. I'm over it. So how 'bout replying to my previous post?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Gene writes:

---

I want to see this plagiarism issue get settled first.

---

Posting other people's words without acknowledgement or attribution is a legitimate concern, and it's explicitly mentioned as item 6 in the Forum Guidelines. However, given that Conspirator is a new member, and given the level of sophistication of the arguments being put in play, and given the absence of doubt that other sites were cut-n-pasted verbatim without attribution, it is not thought that requiring Conspirator to actually "own up" is necessary. Whether he wishes to do so is left up to him.However, it is noted that Conspirator began with somewhat inflammatory posts, and that he has therefore already skirted two of the eight guidelines. For this reason, attention is again called to the Forum Guidelines, particularly item 3 and the Enforcement portion at the bottom. After a couple warnings, the next step is usually a 24-hour suspension of posting privileges.--------------------EvC Forum Administrator

The Administrator's comment is adequate for me. I consider it settled, but I hope the worthy opposition will be able to take the time and answer our replies (which is a bigger investment in time than we evolutionists make because the opposition is outnumbered).

--Late, but oh well (sorry, meant to get this reply up earlier, was unable to access the internet for a couple days)"Furthermore, I don't have a lack of experience in anything that has to do with Creation or Evolution.... Or a lack of respect, either."
--Lets not think we are more intelligent than we really are. I think I know you didn't mean the former literally, however, I do believe even Ph.D'd scientists have a lack in experience in various topics of C vs. E. there are more than enough different approaches to take questions for instance that you may have never heard of."It's just that the evolutionists in previous discussions that I've had with them don't deserve my respect because all they do is don't listen to my reasons why I don't like Evolution, try to force their beliefs on me and don't show me any repsect."
--If they do not deserve your respect (whether true or not, and going by what you say) than I guess that means that they don't deserve it. You have had yet to even counter the participants on this board and quickly shout out hatred. This is known as prejudice and has been said (forgive me for my quibble) is not acceptable. Also, you should be weary of what you say, again, the latter most of this quote is exactly what many of the secular world would say of you. It seems that both sides need a bit of a spanking or correction at times, but furthering the problem is just fanning the flame."Ok, so you want to know my reasons why i disagree with Evolution? Here they are. Oh, and I don't mind typing a lot of information with one post, so expect me to post alot in one post pretty often in the future. I have no problem whatsoever with posting extremely long posts."
--Just so that you are aware quantity should be equative to quality, which is much more important than quantity.--Let us now skip the hog-wash and go right to the scientific discussion now, shall we?"There are no transitional links or intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world."
--Technically according to the Theory of Evolution (and we must make sure we are working in the correct context of any theory), everything is a 'transitional'. The problem you may be looking for is the 'transition'. Of course I have found, however, that Evolution has more than enough flexibility to cope with what is present in the fossil record. After all, it tells the story, there isn't any known direct comparison for a veracious check-up."Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occured either in the past or the present.
--What evolutionary development happens today is of no significance to the fossil record, over-all deposition in telling the story of historical development within the realm of the theory takes place over much longer time-periods than 'the present'. Present Evolutionary development is confined to Biology."There are literally a host of missing links in the fossil record and the modern world."
--Most certainly expected."Natural selection, the driving mechanism for evolution is totally inadequate. It along with mutations is said to have caused organisms to evolve from one basic kind (animals which can reproduce with each other) into another basic kind. This is prohibited genetically since all of the information for the development of an organism has already been coded in the DNA of its parent. Variation to organisms must remain within the basic kind. For example, genetically, a wide variety of dogs can come to exist, but a dog can never become anything other than a dog. It remains in its kind. It does not have the genetic ability to become anything more. "
--What then is the barrier, and why is it a barrier. Ie, what causes this barrier in evolutionary development."Admitting this, evolutionists have tried to explain that natural selection happened in conjunction with mutations to the genetic code. This could not produce evolution, however, since mutations do not create new genetic potential, they just alter what is already there."
--A very large misconception. You have claimed that mutations cannot create new genetic potential, however this happens frequently. This is simply what mutation is, altering the genetic code as you stated. However this alteration produces a new sequence of nucleotide bases, which therefore mingles with the structure of an organism."Furthermore, mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code. This also makes evolution from mutatiions impossible. For example, a working wristwatch does not improve, but is harmed when its inside parts are randomly altered."
--Mutations are small, and random, however, are only harmful if the environmental conditions suit it as such. If environmental conditions allowed, that same mutation may have been beneficial. Also, I've seen plenty versions of the common 'wristwatch', but I have seen many of higher quality, yet they all have the same common purpose of doing what they were made to do. Similar is life in that we are all struggling per se for life with various characteristical qualities."Survival of the fittest" demonstrates only how an organism has survived, not how it has evolved."
--You've missed the point. How an organism has survived determines the evolutionary development of the population. This includes differentiation from harmful and beneficial directions. The harmful will not survive so you are left with beneficial traits in the evolving population."Natural selction can also be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies. Socially, it argues that the best and fittest society would be one where its' individuals look out only for themselves and would advance themselves, if possible, at the expense of others. It would even destroy others if possible. Thus, barbarism is demanded by natural selction with the destruction of the weak and the free domain of the powerful."
--Slightly, you do take it to unnecessary extremes with your vocabulary though. Also you should use the word 'population' rather than the individual, it works better in the evolutionary scale."It demands total annihilation of anything weaker than necessary and the ruling of anyone more powerful than others. People exhibit mercy, pity, and morality, all of which inhibit natural selection."
--No it doesn't demand 'total annihilation' of any weaker population, haven't you ever heard of an ecosystem?"Practically, it has the following and many other inconsistencies: 1. The natural selction process could not have the forethought to allow an organism to become worse temporarily in order to ultimately form an eye, for example."
--Not a good example, see Johns comment."It requires that organisms began as crude, yet an organism could not have survived with basic intricate functions such as respiration or reproduction. These had to exist from the beginning of the organism."
--Only if required, aerobic respiration in theory evolved very early in evolutionary development."Our bodies depend on systems that run according to intricate order such as from DNA. A system dependant on order cannot be created by disorder."
--You in your(?) comments show a relatively enormous lack in Evolutionary knowledge. It is a system dependent on a sequence, which can be beneficially disrupted of its original sequence into something new."Continuing with logical inconsistencies about natural selection... 1. Although evolutionists say that organisms are suited for their environment because they evolved into it, being suited for the environment is much better explained by the fact that they were created for the environment rather than that they evolved into it. 2. The fact that living things have similar patterns and design points to a common designer better than to a common ancestor. In fact, such variety in the world could not have been produced if we all came from the same ancestor."
--All Subjective."3. If we all come from the same ancestor, we would all be murderers and cannibals by the simple act of killing a cow."
--What the heck is the significance of this seemingly very odd looking comment?"4. While small and undeveloped things do become grown and developed such as a baby to its parent and a seed to it tree, the pattern of growth is circular, not simply crude to the developed as natural selection proposes."
--You can explain this one to me as well.."5. Our needs exceed those of survival. Needs for love and friendship, for example, cannot be exaplined if all that do is for survival."
--'cannot be explained if all that do is for survival'?"6. Order and interdependence in the world argues for a designer and against chance."
--No, it doesn't directly, see above comments."Although evolutionists state that life evolved from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world."
--Another great misconception. It isn't the Evolutionist that states that life evolved from non-life, or that matter resulted from nothing, but the atheist. And humans resulting from animals isn't 'an impossibility of science and the natural world'."Life is far too complex to have resulted from any chance happening. Even the simplest form of life consists of billions of parts working together and needed for the basic functioning of the organism. These could not have sprung into being at the same time and interrelating by chance."
--Subjective until you can present data of some sort."The supposed hominids bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of "finds" which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They neither clear nor conclusive though evolutionists present them as if they were. They present much of their finds as if they were compelling and factual explanations to human evolution. In fact, they base their conclusions on mere speculation and of the flimsiest of "finds." Many discoveries of supposed hominids consist only of a mouth fragment, a leg bone, a hip bone, or a knee joint. On this alone, they have considered it to be a hominid. They even name it, reconstruct what it looked like, and present it to the public as fact. Some of these finds have turned out to be a pig, donkey, or the result of a hoax. One hoax consisted of someone placing a human skull with an ape's jaw. Evolutionists declared it to be a hominid for fifty years without having done an in depth study of it. Some finds consist of an assortment of fragments found miles apart and them placed together to look as though they came from the same individual. Sometimes rocks as simple as those found in any backyard are called tools of hominids and are pictured in books. Footprints that look iodentical to any person's today are sometimes declared in books and accepted as those of honminids.Nine of the twelve supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/monkeys and not part human at all. They are demonstrated to be extinct apes or monkeys and not part human at all, the discovery of extinct apes demonstrated some of the finds to be monkeys/apes. Close examination of the skulls and bones have caused experts to determine that none of the other skulls have any human characteristics either. The bones and skulls found could be any of the perhaps thousands of monkeys and apes that have existed in the past. These bones and skulls have never been found apart from where apes/monkeys live or have lived.
The final three hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part ape/monkey at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ape or fully modern human, but not something in between."
--I highly doubt your confidence, but I'll leave this section to the those knowledgeable in paleontology."The rock strata (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution. The Rock Strata is better explained by a universal flood than by gradual death of organisms over millions of years recorded in the rock as evolutionsts assert."
--While I am a flood proponent, saying that they are 'better explained' is highly and unrealistically stretching it. Flood proponents do have more problems to deal with. I'm not worried with our very short time of hard scientific research in the field of Flood Geology, however I know progression is well under way and a Flood may explain the majority of what I know in General Geoscience."A large flood is necessary for the formation of fossils in the first place. Fossiles require quick and tremendous pressure to be formed."
--Not really, your mixing up coal in there somewhere too. Fossilization/permineralization does not require pressures at all, but require isolation from biostructures hazerdous to the destruction of the sample."Without this, a carcass not only could not form a fossil over time, but would be eaten by scavengers or destroyed by bacteria."
--Disregarding your last unsuccessful rebut, this is why fossilization is known as rare."The circulating water of a flood (along with gravity) would cause smaller organisms to naturally bury lower and more mobile organisms, with the ability to temporarily avoid the flood, would be buried close to the top for this reason. Such things as fish, which are already low in the sea, would also naturally be buried low. A universal flood has been well documented historically as having ovvured. Evolutionists have used fossils in rock sediments to say that simpler organisms were at the bottom of the sediment and more complex ones were at the top. They have ignored the great inconsistencies in the finds for which a flood could account, but not the evolutionary process."
--I am not going to sit here and type out a report on deposition and flood dynamics but I can assure you that nothing in here shows any sign of significant knowledge in the topic."In fact, in some strata, a tree can be seen protruding through several layers which supposedly formed over millions of years."
--Example with dating documentation? Otherwise I will state that the mainstream has no problem with brief catastrophism."I'll continue with answering your questions to this later..."
--Please do, I spent a little bit of time going through your post, I expect the same out of you.--I also realize the gravity of all replies to your post, so as it pertains to mine, it is fine if you wish to pick something short you may like to go deeper in.------------------[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 08-08-2002]

TCI follow your indepth replies; and for what?Most of Conspirator's statements (regardless of source) you seem to dismiss as perhaps oversimplified. But your responses, like that of many Evos and YECs seem also oversimplified rebuts (like the one I just got from Monck about my not saying anything scientific).For example:
Our human physiologies are extremely and fortuitously complex. To state that these could have even possibly evolved from OWM's etc. is bold (albeit metaphysically possible in theory only). What seems impossible in physics is the human evolution of enzymes and their dynamically interactive macro-physiologies:Take an enzyme, any enzyme (or enzyme families), with its active site(s) and catalytic force vectors so intricately and perfectly arranged; with every atom crucially supporting one another for the active site(s) to be beneficial. Now explain how one simple enzyme could have possibly evolved via physics of selective reproduction/DNA-mutation when its active site seems to require all of its atoms in place A PRIORI (sometimes hundreds of thousands, i.e. in the case of DNA-Gyrase).That the DNA-sequences could ever code an enzyme via incremental reproductive mutations seems impossible in micro-physics, due to overwhelming randomization forces overcoming any reproductive selection pressures. Sure, an insignificant garbage molecule might mutate, but then into a glorious enzyme? (And yes, enzymes are glorious to our survival and that of all ecosystems)Any enzymatic mega-molecule (and its so called families), with its catalytic force vectors at its active site(s) seems to require A PRIORI DNA codons via some non-ToE mechanism, regardless of the theoretical possibilities.On the other hand, A YEC's assertion of ID seems equally improbable, at least from an empiricist's point of view, as you seem to infer. While I accept the YEC's position as easier to believe, because it erradicates the God-of-the-gaps faith-bias altogether, I must denounce the mega-ToE position, too: Since evolutionary reproductive mutations of enzymes seems too impossible for these exquiste mega-molecules.If you or anyone has information on how an enzyme like a Kinase or DNA-Gyrase could have possibly evolved, please let me know. The ToE (micro nor mega) makes no sense to me here.I won't mention other (proposed) ICs at this point.Forgive my intrusion.Philip

[QUOTE][B]To state that these could have even possibly evolved from OWM's etc. is bold (albeit metaphysically possible in theory only).[/QUOTE][/B]"OWM"?

gene: OWM is Philip's idiosyncratic abbreviation for "old world monkeys". Which in itself is a nice non-sequitor.

"Most of Conspirator's statements (regardless of source) you seem to dismiss as perhaps oversimplified."
--I don't really dismiss them as oversimplified. Rather, I look at the statement made and reply with my thoughts on their degree of veracity. It is as I defended in my post through reason and working within the frame of the theory (something which must be done for any assertion pertaining to credibility of that which you critique to be credible) that his statements and argumental approaches are inapplicable, they are misinterpretations and misrepresentations of the theory. True, many of his arguments were highly simplistic in that he made his assertion and then with high confidence claimed that the ToE has been defeated (not his own words). He has made his assertions and I have made mine directly countering his. I find them sufficient until new thoughts are brought in."But your responses, like that of many Evos and YECs seem also oversimplified rebuts (like the one I just got from Monck about my not saying anything scientific)."
--I have not read yours and Manck's discussion, however I have no problem with a slight 'simplification' of a reply in argument. As long as there is a willingness to delve further into a certain argument and dissect its validity. In that, I have no problem with conspirator (or anyone else) directing a specific question at a specific reply I have given which shows that I disagree with something that was said, and going further into discussion."For example:
Our human physiologies are extremely and fortuitously complex. To state that these could have even possibly evolved from OWM's etc. is bold (albeit metaphysically possible in theory only). What seems impossible in physics is the human evolution of enzymes and their dynamically interactive macro-physiologies:Take an enzyme, any enzyme (or enzyme families), with its active site(s) and catalytic force vectors so intricately and perfectly arranged; with every atom crucially supporting one another for the active site(s) to be beneficial. Now explain how one simple enzyme could have possibly evolved via physics of selective reproduction/DNA-mutation when its active site seems to require all of its atoms in place A PRIORI (sometimes hundreds of thousands, i.e. in the case of DNA-Gyrase).That the DNA-sequences could ever code an enzyme via incremental reproductive mutations seems impossible in micro-physics, due to overwhelming randomization forces overcoming any reproductive selection pressures. Sure, an insignificant garbage molecule might mutate, but then into a glorious enzyme? (And yes, enzymes are glorious to our survival and that of all ecosystems)Any enzymatic mega-molecule (and its so called families), with its catalytic force vectors at its active site(s) seems to require A PRIORI DNA codons via some non-ToE mechanism, regardless of the theoretical possibilities.On the other hand, A YEC's assertion of ID seems equally improbable, at least from an empiricist's point of view, as you seem to infer. While I accept the YEC's position as easier to believe, because it erradicates the God-of-the-gaps faith-bias altogether, I must denounce the mega-ToE position, too: Since evolutionary reproductive mutations of enzymes seems too impossible for these exquiste mega-molecules.If you or anyone has information on how an enzyme like a Kinase or DNA-Gyrase could have possibly evolved, please let me know. The ToE (micro nor mega) makes no sense to me here."
--Your inquisition on this example seems likely. However, I am at a low level of knowledge when it comes to specific molecular biologic mechanics so I would have to leave it to those more in-tune with the subject."Forgive my intrusion."
--No problem, I would encourage a more branching discussion as it pertains to misc participants in the exchange of ideas.------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
gene: OWM is Philip's idiosyncratic abbreviation for "old world monkeys". Which in itself is a nice non-sequitor.

---

--I read OWN in an Evo-tree article referenced by Mark, I think.
--Welcome, back Quetzal.
--With respect to your intermittant schedule and mine: might you not, at least theoretically or by speculation, have something plausible to say about a ToE explaining enzyme/enzyme family(s) formation, that makes any empirical or rational sense, whatsoever? (Take your time, expect slow responses from me, too)

--TC, thanks for your thoughtful reply.
--I see Quetzel has resurrected somewhat. And just in time. Thus, almost reflexively, I (ap-)perceive to have cast this enzyme inquiry into his awakening consciousness, where it will (no doubt), stew, ponder, boil up, and spew out into something really tantalizing.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
gene: OWM is Philip's idiosyncratic abbreviation for "old world monkeys". Which in itself is a nice non-sequitor.

---

​

--I read OWN in an Evo-tree article referenced by Mark, I think.
--Welcome, back Quetzal.
--With respect to your intermittant schedule and mine: might you not, at least theoretically or by speculation, have something plausible to say about a ToE explaining enzyme/enzyme family(s) formation, that makes any empirical or rational sense, whatsoever? (Take your time, expect slow responses from me, too)

---

Guilty as charged!Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Hi Philip - sorry about my "enforced absence" during July. Hope you've had a good summer.Anyway, with reference to your "evolution of proteins/enzymes", I'm afraid you're barking up something of the wrong tree. Not only is there a huge amount of research on-going in this area - with implications for everything from plant breeding to disease - but there are a number of papers outlining precisely that. A simple search on PubMed yielded over 950 citations. A couple of interesting articles include: Complementary advantageous substitutions in the evolution of an antiviral RNase of higher primates, and Primitive Protease Discovery May Unlock Mysteries Of Enzyme Evolution, which, although not peer-reviewed, is very interesting.In any event, there are a couple of points to your argument that merit looking at:1. A lot (in fact, probably most) existing enzymes evolved via gene duplication, substitution, etc in existing enzymes.2. It is very difficult (and I'm sure TB can attest to this) to determine the phylogeny of a specific enzyme much beyond a generic "family" (be careful, this term doesn't really correspond to the linnean taxonomic group of the same name). Often different, closely related families, share functional and structural features including enzymes capable of catalyzing similar reactions. Worse still, enzymes within a family may share as little as 10% sequence, even though they have the same 3D structure. Phylogeny may be based on structure or reaction.3. Some enzymes catalyze completely different reactions. For example, the enzyme chymotrypsine catalyzes both amidase and phosphotriesterase reactions. Even more confusing, carbonic anhydrase II in cows also has a phosphotriesterase action as well as the carbon esterase and CO2 hydratase actions for which it was named.With all this duplication of effort across gene families, it is fairly easy to see how selection could have caused the evolution of new enzymes using different mechanisms to catalyze the same or different reactions. Anyway, for a more technical discussion, please see Divergeant Evolution of (beta-alpha)8 Barrel Enzymes. It contains an excellent discussion of the evolution of the enolase enzyme superfamily.Closing: Even beyond the evolution of specific enzymes, for your argument to hold any validity, you (and TB) are going to have to provide a non-evolutionary explanation for why enzyme families are found in vastly different organisms - some are identical in plants AND animals of various types. All of which leads, if you're an evilutionist, to indications of the common ancestry of ALL life. Of course, you could always just say "goddidit that way". To me, that's begging the question, however.