Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution: theory for the weak-minded?
Mr BLonDe
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 44 (8344)
04-08-2002 8:10 PM


Ok, first off I'd like to say this is my first post on this wonderful forum. So, since I've read only a few of the most recent posts, I am going to contribute all of my points into one big one, to try and see if evolutionists can successfully refute them. I know that these are some of the main points brought up by creationists, I just want to hear a face-to-face reply from in defence from them.
A.) Mutations-Mutations are what evolutionists rely on for their theory to hold together. It basically works like this (in a nut shell)
Mutation + Natural Selection = Evolution
What amazes me the most, is how mutations hardly benefit the theory of evolution, yet everyone assumes they do. First of all, 99.9% of mutations are NOT advantegeous at all. Good & benefitial mutations are what hold the beaten down theory of evolution together, if the animal/mutant is not given a benifit from his mutation, it will either be nuetral, harmful, or even fatal. So this alone should put the theory to at least some question. But (you are probably wondering) what about the .1% that ARE benefitial? 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. When debating molecules to man evolution, it is the advantegous new complexity mutations we should see happening millions of times in nature to make evolution even a little credible. An example of a lucky defect mutation would be when a beetle looses its wings through a mutation, and somehow happens to be benefitial. That is NOT something that should be used in defense in the theory of evolution, because it is a total dump off of DNA information, and can't explain how one species could possible evolve into another. Evolutionists will often use bacteria as an example also..and they couldn't be anymore wrong. Bacteria often already posess the trait that makes them resist certain things (in a group), and when they DO inherit their resistance through mutation..we have never witnessed evidence that there is information added in the big D.N.A bin. For example, resistance against pennecilin is a result of loosing a control gene..but no new complexities were recieved (not to mention it is just micro-evolution). 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.)Natural Selection & Adaptation-Natural Selection is NOT proof of evolution. In fact, natural selection in itself is LIMITED too micro-evolution, people often get confused . If you have a group of horses, and speed is essential to their survival, then you will find that the fastest horses will survive, and spread their genes around faster. BUT, 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). The same goes with Adaptation, you cannot, and will not, get new species with micro-evolution going against you (so to speak). I really can't stand it when evolutionists will try to use this as proof to those who don't understand or don't know any better (like jr. high students *cough*). Natural Selection is limited to the boundaries of micro-evolution. This is, ofcourse, what we have observed today. Don't believe me? Bacteria reproduce so rapidly that their lifespan is equivalent to hundreds (if not thousands..millions) over relatively short periods of time. Why don't we see dramatic macro changes that benefit the theory of evolution?
C.) Old Earth - 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? Read and refute this lovely link before talking about old earth dating methods.
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. Any thing else I'm forgetting? What about more circular reasoning with the geologic column. 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.
(circular reasoning)
To quickly establish a fact: the geoligic column is nothing but nonsense, and DOES not scientifically exist.
D.) Transitional fossils - IF the thoery of evolution were in fact..a fact..we would expect to see millions (not hundreds, millions) of transitional fossils scattered around the earth. Yet..all the evolutionists have are a handful of questionable fossils that could be easily intrepeted as a different species. What amazes me, is the fascinating hominiod fossils used as "proof" of the evo's monkeys-to-man evolution scenario.
Neanderthal - These were humans that lived in Europe thousands of years ago. They had much larger cranial capacaties (which probably means that they were smarter than us today). They also suffered rickets and arthritis from poor diets and the damp, cold climate they lived in(effect of the world wide flood). We've even see people today that shockingly resemble the supposed neanderthal hominoid.
Lucy - Tree climbing chimpanzee that had slightly bigger bones, and a crushed skull.
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.
Piltdown Man - a hoax! Skull treated with chemicals and put inside a half-monkey, half-human skeleton
Java Man - founder of this so called hominiod denounced its credibility before he died.
Nebraska Man - Pigs tooth.
I could go on FOREVER. My point is that we have no clear cut evidence of transitional humans/hominiods .
E.) Abiogenesis - Which I know has nothing to do with the evolution theory specifically, it definatly is closely related. I just want to point out that the odds of a cell assemblying itself by chance from a jumble of amino acids in an ocean from a lightning spark are so low, mathmaticians would consider the proability '0'. Enough said.
Thats about all I can think of to say that has any value at this point, thnx to those who kindly reply .
------------------
Mr BLonDe
"if all logic fails...hit it with a hammer"

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-08-2002 8:21 PM Mr BLonDe has not replied
 Message 9 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-08-2002 10:47 PM Mr BLonDe has not replied
 Message 12 by no2creation, posted 04-09-2002 2:34 AM Mr BLonDe has not replied
 Message 13 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-09-2002 12:44 PM Mr BLonDe has not replied
 Message 33 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-10-2002 2:06 PM Mr BLonDe has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 44 (8346)
04-08-2002 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mr BLonDe
04-08-2002 8:10 PM


Oh man, I hope your ready to reply, because the evolutionists at this board are going to blast you! Good luck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mr BLonDe, posted 04-08-2002 8:10 PM Mr BLonDe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-08-2002 10:04 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 3 of 44 (8349)
04-08-2002 9:22 PM


The initial post of this thread cuts across a number of topic areas, so I've moved it to the Miscellaneous Topics forum.
--Percy

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 4 of 44 (8350)
04-08-2002 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Cobra_snake
04-08-2002 8:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Oh man, I hope your ready to reply, because the evolutionists at this board are going to blast you! Good luck.

I have another time commitment right now, to go to, but I'll take #C, if someone else dosn't harpoon it first. Be back later.
Da Moose
------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 04-08-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-08-2002 8:21 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Mr BLonDe
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 44 (8352)
04-08-2002 10:17 PM


/me waits patiently for reply with slight distress
------------------
Mr BLonDe
"if all logic fails...hit it with a hammer"

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-08-2002 10:27 PM Mr BLonDe has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 44 (8353)
04-08-2002 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Mr BLonDe
04-08-2002 10:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mr BLonDe:
/me waits patiently for reply with slight distress

Hehe, you should of just left the old earth out of the picture! Do you have any idea how many links you're going to have to read?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Mr BLonDe, posted 04-08-2002 10:17 PM Mr BLonDe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Joe Meert, posted 04-08-2002 10:34 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 7 of 44 (8354)
04-08-2002 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Cobra_snake
04-08-2002 10:27 PM


Well, Mr. DeBlonde...methinks you just attended a Kent Hovind lecture! CS: He did mention the old earth and in the same breath C-14 dating. The shotgun laundry list (straight out of videotapes 1 and 2) hardly deserves a reply, but I am willing if Mr. DeBlonde can explain lucidly as to why he thinks C-14 dating is relevant to the age of the earth.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-08-2002 10:27 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Joe Meert, posted 04-08-2002 10:35 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 8 of 44 (8355)
04-08-2002 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Joe Meert
04-08-2002 10:34 PM


PS: You're really a troll aren't you Mr. DB?
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Joe Meert, posted 04-08-2002 10:34 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 9 of 44 (8356)
04-08-2002 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mr BLonDe
04-08-2002 8:10 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mr BLonDe, posted 04-08-2002 8:10 PM Mr BLonDe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-08-2002 11:21 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 44 (8357)
04-08-2002 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Mister Pamboli
04-08-2002 10:47 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mister Pamboli:
Thanks for the entertainment. Now could someone with half a clue post something?
Do I count?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-08-2002 10:47 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Mister Pamboli, posted 04-09-2002 1:23 AM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 11 of 44 (8364)
04-09-2002 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Cobra_snake
04-08-2002 11:21 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Do I count?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-08-2002 11:21 PM Cobra_snake has not replied

  
no2creation
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 44 (8368)
04-09-2002 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mr BLonDe
04-08-2002 8:10 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr BLonDe:
[b]
B.)...Bacteria reproduce so rapidly that their lifespan is equivalent to hundreds (if not thousands..millions) over relatively short periods of time. Why don't we see dramatic macro changes that benefit the theory of evolution?[/QUOTE]
What would you classify and/or what is your definition of a 'dramatic macro change’? Why would bacterial evolution have to benefit mankind?
Since the introduction of antibiotics, bacteria have undergone many changes. Changes that wouldn't be considered beneficial to humans, but beneficial to the bacterium. At one point many scientists and doctors abroad actually thought that the mass use of antibiotics was eradicating many infectious types of bacteria. Scientists and Doctors now know that the opposite is true.
Not only are these infectious bacteria not dieing off, but they are coming back stronger. Certain bacteria have evolved into forms 'Resistant' to almost all antibiotics currently available.
Here’s a great link on the subject from the Scientific American:
http://www.sciam.com/1998/1198issue/1198nesse.html
How come Creation Science isn't helping with the research on this subject?
added by edit: I use the term 'Creation Science' loosely.
[This message has been edited by no2creation, 04-09-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mr BLonDe, posted 04-08-2002 8:10 PM Mr BLonDe has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 13 of 44 (8387)
04-09-2002 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mr BLonDe
04-08-2002 8:10 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mr BLonDe:
First of all, 99.9% of mutations are NOT advantegeous at all.
first review some modern genetics or molecular biology and then we will talk. Here are two links that will bring you slightly more up to date.
http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/classes/s260/Week13a/week13a/node8.html
http://www.wsu.edu/~mmorgan/gencb511f98/neutraltheory/index.html
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.
Here we go, it gives the little bug more to eat.
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
as well as dumping on the information arguement used by creaitonists.
Here is another useful mutation.
http://www.news.wisc.edu/view.html?id=5528
please note that the cell lines are non-cancerous.
quote:
Bacteria often already posess the trait that makes them resist certain things (in a group), and when they DO inherit their resistance through mutation..we have never witnessed evidence that there is information added in the big D.N.A bin.
See above, you are wrong.
quote:
B.)Natural Selection & Adaptation-Natural Selection is NOT proof of evolution.
You have it backwards, NS is the proposed mechanism of evolution, not the proof of it.
quote:
Natural Selection is limited to the boundaries of micro-evolution. This is, ofcourse, what we have observed today. Don't believe me?
Nope,please provide a biological or biochemical reason for your statement in light of the info provided to you above. Micro = macro w.r.t speciation. Macro evolution is actually the observation of larger trends in evolution, not simple speciation as you indicate.
[QUOTE]bC.) Old Earth[/b] - 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? [/QUOTE]
If they did say carbon dating for billions of years then they are as lacking in knowledge as to the real science as you appear to be.
quote:
Read and refute this lovely link before talking about old earth dating methods.
Here is one, the transfer of Ar across mineral boundires is not a concern due to essentially non-existent transfer rates. And please explain why, if against all measurement, the transfer rates are a problem that methods that deal with other radioisotopes give similar ages. Finally, ever hear of the single grain laser Ar method,it Completely trashes this guys arguement re: Ar/K dating.
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.
The global flood is simple nonsense. No hydrodynamic model in existence can explain the deposition manner of the fossils through the geological layers. Please pick up a book on geology to see what I mean.
quote:
Lucy - Tree climbing chimpanzee that had slightly bigger bones, and a crushed skull.
I will only pick on one due to a lack of time
http://biology.uindy.edu/Biol504/HUMANSTRATEGY/16transition.htm
Not a chimp, too bad.
quote:
I could go on FOREVER.
Please do
. You are only helping my arguements.
quote:
E.) Abiogenesis - Which I know has nothing to do with the evolution theory specifically
First accurate thing that you have said.
quote:
it definatly is closely related. I just want to point out that the odds of a cell assemblying itself by chance from a jumble of amino acids in an ocean from a lightning spark are so low, mathmaticians would consider the proability '0'.
Care to share the stats with me. I just got off of another board last night and trashed them and I have done so here earlier.
Oh well, time to get back to the lab
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mr BLonDe, posted 04-08-2002 8:10 PM Mr BLonDe has not replied

  
Mr BLonDe
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 44 (8392)
04-09-2002 8:38 PM


Got to make this quick, sorry if personal affairs effect the quality of this post .
quote:
but I am willing if Mr. DeBlonde can explain lucidly as to why he thinks C-14 dating is relevant to the age of the earth.
Well, if an animal is proven to be x million years old, then
age of the earth > x million years old
since the animal must of lived on the earth.
On the subject of Mutations:
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.
I didn't deny the existance of benefitial mutations, only the ones in which new complexities arise. (BTW, not having teeth is a bad example, your loosing a complexity - a tooth) We'll get into this later..
quote:
I'm no scientist, (but then neither are you) but I did find this link jolly interesting ... http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

No, I'm not a scientist, but this isn't the first time the subject of nylon getting its digesting ability from a frameshift has been asked. I guess I'll answer a link from information from another link:
[i]"New evidence shows that the ability was due to plasmids
SOURCE: Aig
quote:
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?
I'm confused, what made you come to this conclusion? I know it is possible, heck theoretically a human could be born with wings, but the real question is if rather or rather not it happens in nature. I didn't think I would have to tell everyone this.
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.
Actually, I was refering to the confusions of those who don't know any better. Someone has confronted me before and asked why it was I deny evolution...because natural selection makes it inevetable. See what I mean? A mere mechanism does not prove the entire theory..and it was only meant to clarify things. Again, I didn't think it would be necessary to mention these details.
quote:
WHat do you mean by "degenerating"? What is it and why is it happening?
By degenerating..I guess you could call it evolving for the worse. We aren't getting better, bigger, stronger, etc. as the theory of evolution suggests, we are degenerating. Why? Because of sin of man mentioned numerous times in the bible.
quote:
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.
Again, obviously so, but I was refering specifacally to the evolutionists side...hence the title .
quote:
What does it mean for something to "scientifically exist"? Can you define the term?
What evidence do you have to show that those layers in fact do represent millions of years?
quote:
WHy?
Well...why not? Don't you find it even a little unbelievable that we find numerous fossils of one species...but nothing but handfuls of the most questionable 'transition fossils'? I do.
quote:
Not held to be a transitional, but an extinct branch.
Yet..thought of as a credible hominoid in the evolutionary timeline.
quote:
A hoax exposed by evolutionists using the sound principles of taxonomy.
Yet..still a hoax...and still thought to be a credible hominoid for a certain timespan.
quote:
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?
Lol...take it easy.
quote:
What would you classify and/or what is your definition of a 'dramatic macro change’? Why would bacterial evolution have to benefit mankind?
Sorry, I kind of left a very important peice of information out from that statement.
Edit: Bacteria reproduce so rapidly that their lifespan is equivalent to hundreds (if not thousands..millions) of human years over relatively short periods of time. Why don't we see dramatic macro changes that benefit the theory of evolution?
quote:
You have it backwards, NS is the proposed mechanism of evolution, not the proof of it.
Again, I was just uncofusing the confused...and..isn't that exactly what I said? NS does not proove evolution?
quote:
Here is one, the transfer of Ar across mineral boundires is not a concern due to essentially non-existent transfer rates. And please explain why, if against all measurement, the transfer rates are a problem that methods that deal with other radioisotopes give similar ages.
On the subject of Argon dating:
quote:
Here is one, the transfer of Ar across mineral boundires is not a concern due to essentially non-existent transfer rates.
May I see these transfer rates? And, even so, it still ruins the credibility of the method.
quote:
Care to share the stats with me. I just got off of another board last night and trashed them and I have done so here earlier
http://evolution-facts.org/c07.htm
I'd say that link does a nice job explaining why the possiblilities are pretty slim.

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 04-09-2002 10:56 PM Mr BLonDe has not replied
 Message 16 by Percy, posted 04-09-2002 10:57 PM Mr BLonDe has not replied
 Message 17 by no2creation, posted 04-09-2002 11:40 PM Mr BLonDe has not replied
 Message 32 by Weyland, posted 04-10-2002 12:55 PM Mr BLonDe has not replied

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 15 of 44 (8393)
04-09-2002 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Mr BLonDe
04-09-2002 8:38 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr BLonDe:
http://evolution-facts.org/c07.htm
I'd say that link does a nice job explaining why the possiblilities are pretty slim.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Actually w.r.t. the stats it does not explain them at all. Fortunately I am quite aware of Hoyles arguement. I copied this from anothger board that I post on (it is mine so there is the atribution.
They appear to be using as a basis the types of numbers that Sir Frederick Hoyle has used in "Evolution from Space" and other books. There have been numerous articles demonstrating the erros in the assumptions behind these numbers so I will only name a few.
1) In Evolution from Space Dr. Hoyle starts be comparing gorilla and human hemoglobin as a basis for his assumptions in the allowability of mutations in proteins, and eventually for his abiogenesis calculations. He could just as well have chosen the hemoglobin from yeast or from bacteria. Yes, some bacteria and other unicellular life contain hemoglobins, which have certian structural, sequence and functional similarities to the gorilla and human protein but have are a very large number of amino acid differences from humans (or gorillas). The point is that he chose a protein which, in most mammals, has a great deal of environmental selection which results in the maintainence of a specific population structure for his calulations. He uses this faulty comparison as a basis for most of his subsequent claims.
He then makes a jump, sans data other than a vague reference to his faulty hemoglobin calculation, to defining a 200 amino acid protein and then says that the odds of the backbone structure being correct are 10^15 and the odds of the active site being correct are 10^5. ANOTHER big error, actually two errors. He then said that the odds of the two forming together were 10^20 (another error here, give me a minute ). Finally, he said that there were ~ 2000 basic proteins in nature giving a grand value of 10^40,000 (10^20 to the 2000). Hooo boy, that really big number MUST mean something, ....and yes it does. It means that Dr. Hoyle should stick to astrophysics because w.r.t. biology and biochemistry he is a bust.
First, he is assuming one structure to one function. It is an a priori assumption that has no basis in fact and actually goes against facts in molecular biology and protein chemistry. In fact, his error is even more fundamental than this because he is assuming a single end point (life as it currently exists) before he even starts, which is statistical nonsense. It is like laying down a sequence of 52 cards. The odds are 8 x 10^67 for that sequence, but you just did it. Now, if you had said that you were going to lay down that sequnce BEFORE you started dealing that would be something . The second error in his first number(s) is that the backbone structure and active site structure are BOTH dependent on the primary structure (ie the sequence), you can not break them down the way that he was. In fact, many changes can be made to the amino acid sequence of a protein without changing the structure or the function at all. Especially in areas that are NOT part of the active site. For example, 5% of the amino acids in a small protein that I work with are not part of the original structure (they were added in) and they do not effect the activity of the protein AT ALL.
Next, the error with the 10^20 was that he was making his base calculations as if the backboen and the active site were not related, that would yield a value of 10^75 (in non-related the powers are multiplied, in related they are added). I will admit that Hoyle, when he did his 10^20 calculation, said that the two were related but then he should have gone back and correct his first two numbers!
Finally, in real abiogenesis no one talks about pure chance, which is what he is using in his calculations here. Abiogenesis (which is separate from evolution) is based on the laws and probabilities of chemcistry and physics. This substantially changes the real probabilities and is another reason why pretty much all of these calculations are bogus.
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Mr BLonDe, posted 04-09-2002 8:38 PM Mr BLonDe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by quicksink, posted 04-10-2002 6:55 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied
 Message 28 by quicksink, posted 04-10-2002 6:57 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024