Evolution: theory for the weak-minded?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr BLonDe:
Mutations are what evolutionists rely on for their theory to hold together.

---

Neo-Darwinists rely heavily on mutations. Other evolutionists hold horizontal gene transfer, symbiogenesis and other mechanisms to be of equal or greater importance.
[b] [QUOTE]First of all, 99.9% of mutations are NOT advantegeous at all ... if the animal/mutant is not given a benifit from his mutation, it will either be nuetral, harmful, or even fatal.[/B][/QUOTE]Indeed most mutations are harmful, which is why the vast majority of fertilized human eggs never make it to term. Of those which do, a distressing number have harmful mutations, but the rest of us happy few have neutral or beneficial mutations. Every single living animal which is not genetically identical to its parent has a mutation of some sort. So there are a helluva lot of them out there![b] [QUOTE]Well, basically I've yet to see a mutation that is TRULY benefitial, and not just a "lucky defect" like having 5 instead of 4 arms.[/b][/QUOTE]If you ever have to have an impacted wisdom tooth extracted you will wish you had that beneficial mutation that saves some humans from the pain. Or you could step into any Starbucks and watch western adults drink lots of milky lattes - my how they benefit from lactose tolerance! Unlike my Chinese colleague who has been unable to drink milk since he was 12.[b] [QUOTE]It is simply silly to suggest that an animal could recieve a new complexity in which it did not previously have by a mutation. If someone has information that suggests otherwise (I.E, something we have actually OBSERVED) then post a reply with a link so I can stop wasting my time.[/b][/QUOTE]I'm no scientist, (but then neither are you) but I did find this link jolly interesting ... http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
However, you seem to be suggesting that it is not merely a question of new information not being observed, but that it is impossible in principle: I would be interested to know why you think this. What principle prevents new information being added?[b] [QUOTE]Natural Selection is NOT proof of evolution. In fact, natural selection in itself is LIMITED too micro-evolution, people often get confused .[/b][/QUOTE]Indeed they get very confused, as your post demonstrates - natural selection is a mechanism of evolution, not a proof or demonstration. You had better clear up your confusions first.
[b] [QUOTE]if you were to sit down and observe these horses for even a million years, you would STILL see horses (probably very screwed up or extinct horses since we are degenerating).[/b][/QUOTE]WHat do you mean by "degenerating"? What is it and why is it happening?[b] [QUOTE]I can't help but chuckle when my science teacher screams accross the classroom that the earth is billions (4.5) of years old. What proof has he? Carbon-14 dating you say?[/b][/QUOTE]If radciocarbon dating is wrong, then our knowledge of radioactive decay is wrong by factors of many thousands. That's a real problem, and if you truly believe it you would be better spending your time campaigning for an immediate end to all nuclear power and nuclear medicine as they involve potentially devastating miscalculations. If our knowledge of radiation is as poor as you believe, you will not be chuckling for long. Meanwhile, I'll leave the radiocarbon dating details to the well-versed scientists who frequent the forum.[b] [QUOTE]Another thing the evolutionists try to convince the weak minded with is the "layer age" theory. Supposedly each layer of the earth represents a different age. This is simply nonsense, and it doesn't take much but a global flood to explain this.[/b][/QUOTE]Clearly even a flood laid down the "layers" as you call them in time sequences - even if only a few days at a time. Nevertheless, the strata represent time periods. The argument is then over the age of these periods and the mechanism by which they were created. But they still represent strata organised by time.[b] [QUOTE]How do you know how old the fossils are? Response: The layer they are in. How do you know how old layer is? Response: The fossils we find in them.[/b][/QUOTE]Could you quickly establish a quotation showing any geologist using this argument? Thanks.[b] [QUOTE]the geoligic column is nothing but nonsense, and DOES not scientifically exist.[/b][/QUOTE]What does it mean for something to "scientifically exist"? Can you define the term? Thanks. BTW, you already said that a global flood explains the layers, so it seems you are not arguing with the geological column, but the geological timescale.
[b] [QUOTE]we would expect to see millions (not hundreds, millions) of transitional fossils scattered around the earth.[/b][/QUOTE]WHy?
[b] [QUOTE]Neanderthal[/b][/QUOTE]Not held to be a transitional, but an extinct branch.
[b] [QUOTE]Lucy - Tree climbing chimpanzee that had slightly bigger bones, and a crushed skull.[/b][/QUOTE]Are you saying that all Australopithecus Afarenis specimens had crushed skulls? Or are you only talking about one specimen - the one nicknamed Lucy? She is not even the species type specimen, so I'm not sure what you are getting at here.
[b] [QUOTE]Cro-Magnom man - Clearly it was a man/human. Some were very tall (6 feet) and there is NO evidence that supports a human transition.[/b][/QUOTE]There is no evidence that supports a transition because Cro-Magnon is not a transitional. They were modern humans.
[b] [QUOTE]Piltdown Man - a hoax! Skull treated with chemicals and put inside a half-monkey, half-human skeleton[/b][/QUOTE]A hoax exposed by evolutionists using the sound principles of taxonomy.
[b] [QUOTE]Java Man - founder of this so called hominiod denounced its credibility before he died.[/b][/QUOTE]Well worth reading this link on the creationist muddle over this one ... http://www.atheists.org/bone.pit/maculateDeception.html
[b] [QUOTE]Nebraska Man - Pigs tooth.[/b][/QUOTE]Again, an error corrected by an evolutionist. In this case, the same one as originally made the mistake. Science has a habit of correcting its own errors with rather more integrity and efficienct than creationist critics.Well it was a fun post - I've rarely seen quite so much junk pulled together. Thanks for the entertainment. Now could someone with half a clue post something?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Do I count?

---

yeh - I'm feeling generous, coz the creationists have given me lots of fun today.

[b] [QUOTE]Yes, but you must remember I am a young earth creationist ...[/b][/QUOTE]Why are you? Is there any evidence that particularly convinced that the earth is only 6-10 thousand years old? Why those particular upper and lower boundaries?
[b] [QUOTE]your particular variation seems a bit contradictory since you allow that information can increase but not complexity. How do you reconcile this seeming contradiction?
My argument is that it is implausible in nature. What contradiction? I am perfectly aware that it is possible to happen, but I just don't think you're ever going to see a case in nature, in which a mutation adds complexity to the mutant.[/b][/QUOTE]Can you describe how information can be added without adding complexity? Or if not that, can you describe what might prevent new information adding complexity - what would be the natural barriers to this?
[b] [QUOTE]But, the information was already present for the recipient to gain.[/b][/QUOTE]The information was not present in the recipient - it gained in both information and complexity. More interestingly, there is a potential for this new information to have emergent properties in combination with existing information and for these emergent properties to be further refined by mutation and natural selection.[b] [QUOTE]Fact - things are changing through mutation[/b][/QUOTE]Evidence? What kind of changes do you see or believe in?[b] [QUOTE]Again, can you please give me some information as to why you think it is, without doubt, true that those layers represent millions of accumulated years?[/b][/QUOTE]Read any geology textbook - preferably a college level one that does not simplify the matter. I notice you didn't answer my point that if the understanding of nuclear decay is wrong, then we are all in very great danger indeed from the nuclear industry and radiological medicine. This is particularly so as the technicians in these fields typically all have the same training and background - indeed at many universities the same departments offer radiocarbon dating as do research or provide services to other nuclear sciences. Honestly, if they can be out by factors of thousands, and have so little grounding in science that a non-specialist can see through their mistakes, we truly are in very great danger, don't you agree?For my part, I see the techniques work in other areas and have no reason to believe that radiological dating is some kind of "black hole of knowledge" where the techniques collapse.[b] [QUOTE]Do you think it was inevetable? For a cell to pop into existance? It doesn't seem it's a natural resting state (as you were indirectly suggesting)..because we would have produced a cell in a lab already. Explain a bit more of why you think the formation of a cell happened in nature.[/b][/QUOTE]No one thinks cells just popped into existence. The emergence of life from cell-replicating molecules could itself have been a lengthy complex process. One of the most puzzling problems for philosophers today is the definition of what constitutes life: a problem made more complex by the array of viruses and prions which live at the very edges of any definition. The evolution life through similar pathways is really not very difficult to imagine: indeed it is difficult to see what barriers there would be to the emergence of life from other self-replicating forms.[b] [QUOTE]I believe we only appear to be more intellegent by stepping on the soldiers of our predecessors. (IE, from Adam on down, people get less intellegent)[/b][/QUOTE]As a pacifist I wholeheartedly agree! But you mean "shoulders" perhaps? Can you show that we are growing less intelligent? Fascinating stuff, if you can.[b] [QUOTE]... where can I find evidence of this human degeneration?First, show me some evidence of uphill evolution.[/b][/QUOTE]As you should be well aware, pretty much this entire forum is a discussion of the evidence for evolution. What you should find, is that modern evolutionists do not believe in qualitative evolution - it is not seen a course of constant improvement, but a course of constant adaptation to pressures. That this has resulted in a markedly more intelligent animal is by no means inevitable. Evolution is directionless, neither uphill or downhill.Nevertheless, read any topic on this forum and you will find people presenting evidence for evolution. Evidence you may reject, of course, but evidence that we propose to you nonetheless. All that was asked was that you provide some evidence, that we may, in our turn, reject. Is that unreasonable?

[b] [QUOTE]I see much evidence for a global flood, for one.[/b][/QUOTE]What evidence do you see for a global flood? For the moment, lets not worry about how others interpret it ... what evidence do you and how do you interpret it?
[b] [QUOTE]The bounderies are obtained from nonother than my bible. Why trust that, assuming it is the absolute truth, you say? Well, if I can see such evidence that revolves around a global catastraphe, and am convinced it was nonother than the great flood of Noah, why not rely on the bible's other lectures about events in the past...particularly the age of the earth?[/b][/QUOTE]Plenty of ancient legends include all sorts of global catastrophes - why pick out this one version of one catastrophe for belief? What evidence does the bible give of the age of the earth?

quote:

---

Can you describe how information can be added without adding complexity? Or if not that, can you describe what might prevent new information adding complexity - what would be the natural barriers to this?
Give me an example where information is added by mutation. Then we'll talk.

---

But you raised a theoretical objection - that's what I want to discuss in this bit - whether information ever has been added is not relevant to whether it can be added. We can deal with that later - we have plenty of time presumably. I always prefer to clear up theoretical considerations and definitions first, otherwise we proceed with too much misunderstanding.
[b] [QUOTE]the information was already present to hand down.[/b][/QUOTE]You're going to have to be very clear about your definition of information and even clearer about your definition of a system to which information has been added! Try this ...If the system is the recipient species then the overall information content of that system has increased, you now have R+I (R(ecipient) and (I)nformation.
If the system is (D)onor and recipient, which seems to be your suggestion as that is the only way in which you can say the information already existed in the system, then the overall information content of that system has increased, because where once you had two species of bacteria, you now have three, the donor, the recipient, and those recipients who did not receive new information: D, R -> D, R, R+I.
If the system is donor and recipient and all recipients receive the new information, then the overall information content has still increased, because you now have donor and recipients all with the information. Even in the simplest notationD,R -> D,R+Iyou simnply cannot reduce the information content of the right hand side of the equation to the same quantity of information as the left hand side. Even if the new information replaces existing information, rather than being added to it, the overall system is still more complex in the scenario you are proposing, because you are suggesting that species remain constant over time - to describe the changed system over time requires more information than to describe the unchanged system: it is more complex.If you think you can show how information can move from one species to another while retaining the same information content of the system then please let me know - I would be very interested to see it.
[b] [QUOTE]I see evidence for change, a general trend towards bad change, but change nevertheless. And, I believe the mechanisms presented by the theory of evolution are responsible.[/b][/QUOTE]Again, what evidence do you see? An interesting point is that you seem to accept the evolutionary mechanism - which is good to see. I'm sure we can demonstrate that information can theoretically be added by mutation, and that there are no barriers to it. Once we have persuaded you of that, and you accept the mechanics of evolution, then I think you will find few problems with speciation by mutation and natural selection.
[b] [QUOTE]Ironically, it is this tendacy for change that puts evolution to the test. Have we really witnessed any change at all that suggests new species could come out of other ones?[/b][/QUOTE]There are lots of examples, which you could search for on the web using Teoma to look for "allopatric speciation" or "sYmpatric speciation." The latter is particularly interesting as it is quite controversial amongst ecologists in particular, so the evidence given tends to be particularly carefully presented.Among my favourites are Rhagoletis pomonella and Pyrophorous plagiophthalamus, studied by Jeffrey Feder (College of Science // University of Notre Dame) The former is particularly interesting as it shows how host selection can lead to sympatric speciation, which exemplifies evolution to exploit new niches rather than evolution as a result of pressure on existing niches.

quote:

---

I notice you didn't answer my point that if the understanding of nuclear decay is wrong
Thats because I didn't think it was of any importance. Plus, I couldn't tell you if we were in 'great danger' because I wouldn't know. I'm simply suggestioning that there are problems present.

---

Well hang on a minute - are you saying your knowledge of radioactive decay is sound enough to understand the issues raised in radiological dating (and moreover, sound enough to be able to judge that experts in the field are mistaken) but that you don't have the knowledge to judge if there are problems in nuclear power and nuclear medicine when they use the same body of knowledge?Let's suppose that you don't know and you are just going along with the arguments of another - do you really not accept my point that radioactive decay is a vital issue for us all as our understanding of it is applied in very dangerous situations (nuclear power plants are proven dangers, and radiological medicine carries known risks) - you think this is of no importance?
[b] [QUOTE]"Could of"? What evidence do we have today that suggests anything to this extreme. Again, how is a life assembled from non-life...by anything other than extreme chance?[/b][/QUOTE]The examples I gave were of self-replicating chemical assemblies - prions and viruses for example - which are so close to being alive that philosophers and scientists alike have considerable difficulty in deciding whether they are or not. We cannot actually draw a clear dividing line - there is no clear barrier between life and non-life to be overcome. And you know what? I think it is stunning - beautiful, mysterious, inspiring and stunning.
[b] [QUOTE]Yes..the slightest typo can cause the greatest amount of confusion .[/b][/QUOTE]You wouldn't be saying it could add new information are you? [b] [QUOTE]Off of my memory at this point, one instance would be the cranial capacity of older humans. If you would look at the neanderthal, for example, you would notice that they actually have a larger skull, rather than a smaller one as you would expect. Same with others..larger cranial capacities.[/b][/QUOTE]You shouldn't rely on cranial capacity alone. For one thing, brain weight is likely more important, and this varies with sex, body size, early-life nutrition, early-life environment and many other factors. I personally suspect neanderthal man was very close to us in intelligence: indeed I wouldn't even argue particularly fiercely from biological evidence that they were noticeably less intelligent, but we can see greatly increased complexity of tools and manual techniques shown by modern man contemporary with neanderthals which is probably indicative of greater intelligence.Finally, a short note on a reply of yours to someone else

quote:

---

I do NOT consider copying of other information a new complexity. For instance a frog being born with three legs.

---

Then you consider incorrectly. The pattern "AAA" is more complex and carries greater information than the pattern "AA" - I cannot see a definition of information that can both accomodate your prior use of the term and the denial of increased information in this case.If you do have such a definition, and can work out examples of its application, it would of course be of great interest to me - and to the information science community in general, I suspect.