PROOF against evolution

Yes, it was easy to prove he is demagogic. Not to write down whole stuff. Sorry. Proved fact. Have you read the discussions? This is just your assertion. Nothing more. HAVE YOU READ WHOLE DISCUSSION?

yxifix, Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1991. The Age of the Earth, California, Stanford University Press. 474 pp. ISBN 0-8047-1569-6"Chondrites (CM, CV, H, L, LL, E) 13 Sm-Nd 4.21 +/- 0.76
Carbonaceous chondrites 4 Rb-Sr 4.37 +/- 0.34
Chondrites (undisturbed H, LL, E) 38 Rb-Sr 4.50 +/- 0.02
Chondrites (H, L, LL, E) 50 Rb-Sr 4.43 +/- 0.04
H Chondrites (undisturbed) 17 Rb-Sr 4.52 +/- 0.04
H Chondrites 15 Rb-Sr 4.59 +/- 0.06
L Chondrites (relatively undisturbed) 6 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.12
L Chondrites 5 Rb-Sr 4.38 +/- 0.12
LL Chondrites (undisturbed) 13 Rb-Sr 4.49 +/- 0.02
LL Chondrites 10 Rb-Sr 4.46 +/- 0.06
E Chondrites (undisturbed) 8 Rb-Sr 4.51 +/- 0.04
E Chondrites 8 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.13
Eucrites (polymict) 23 Rb-Sr 4.53 +/- 0.19
Eucrites 11 Rb-Sr 4.44 +/- 0.30
Eucrites 13 Lu-Hf 4.57 +/- 0.19
Diogenites 5 Rb-Sr 4.45 +/- 0.18
Iron (plus iron from St. Severin) 8 Re-Os 4.57 +/- 0.21"The oldest rocks found on the surface are in the order of 4.5 bn years old. The earth is therefore at least that old. That's right. And he showed that in the time span involved that it didn't. Your turn.But that's neither here nor there, the very, very simple (so simple a child could have got it) analogy showed that if you are disproving something over a large area/time span, then you are required to have knowledge of that time span/area. I note you didn't answer the question. Here it is again, please answer it rather than dodge it, this time.I might have placed a football in the Sahara Desert. What would you need to do in order to PROOVE that I didn't?1/ search a small area for 5 minutes? Or;2/ Search the entire desert.If you don't conduct a test of relevant proportions you show nothing.You are attempting to PROVE that something didn't happen globally over the earths entire history, you have to have certain knowledge of the entire earth for that period in time. Just like you'd have to search the Sahara to prove I never placed a football there.You do understand the purpose of analogy is to make the relevant parts of complex (not that it's complex in the first place) scenarios simple, right? Of course you do. Some parts are rocky & flat, others covered in sand, others hilly. In fact this demonstrates my point perfectly. You assumed that the part you were standing on was indicative of the desert as a whole, when it is a demonstrably false assumption. !You mean you DO have 100% knowledge of the sea in times long gone? Let's have it, then. No, it is PROVED that bacteria didn't spontaneously appear in that experiment. What wasn't PROVED, was that information couldn't appear naturally at all over the entire globe for the duration of the earth.Since you obviously have trouble reading, I'll say it aaaaall again. This so, so simple. Did you have a bad experience with logic as a child?If I observe no mice in a forest, therefore mice don't exist.
If I observe no sharks when I go swimming, therefore sharks do not exist.
If I observe information not appearing in a flask, therefore no new information can exist.Hey, I've just undertaken two experiments that show mice & sharks are PROVEN not to exist! You can say what you like, I have PROOF! You see what's wrong, not with the examples, but with the reasoning? Looking at a small area for a short period of time DEMONSTRABLY does not disprove anything. If you look at the whole time, & the whole area, THEN you can talk proof.In the previous two cases, if you search a bit, you'll find that the conclusion is false. Since you haven't conducted a relevant search over the time scales & physical expanse in question, your conclusion is unwarranted in EXACTLY the same way it is unwarranted in the first two instances.What is so hard for you to grasp? It's not our fault you are trying to demonstrate a negative.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Macroevolution resulting in the origin of a new species derives from the accumulation of mutations over time. There is no memory in the genome to say, "We've changed enough from the original, and further changes are disallowed." If, say, a bacterial genome had accumulated 100 mutations over time, there is nothing keeping track of how many mutations the genome has already experienced to prevent additional mutations. In other words, there are no limits to the number of mutations a genome can accumulate.We know that speciation occurs by at least a couple avenues. First, it has been both observed in the lab and in the wild. And second, fossils are a record of change over time. Well before Darwin it was already widely accepted that evolution had occurred, they just hadn't yet figured out the mechanisms.We also have genomic evidence of speciation through DNA analysis. The genetic differences between closely related species indicate to us which mutations the genomes experienced as the two species drew further apart. This is what I described in Message 99, which is the message you replied to in your first post to this thread. Let us say that these are all the alleles of the eye color gene in a population: Now a reproductive mistake produces a mutation in this gene, giving rise to an additional allele: So now there are four alleles for this gene in the population instead of three. Mutation has produced additional information.It wouldn't make any difference if the new allele resulted in an eye color that already existed, instead of a new color. The measure of information is the size of the set of messages, and our set of messages has just increased in size by one allele, and therefore there is now more information in the population's genome.Of course, if the individual with this mutation fails to reproduce, then the mutation will die with him and the allele count for this gene in the population will decrease by one back to its former size.--Percy

I'd like to suggest to everyone that even when you feel you're only replying in kind, even when you feel snide remarks and so forth are justified, that depending upon the proclivities of who you're debating with this can often provide an alternate focus, with the result that the substance of your message becomes lost or ignored.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Guilty.

That is what you said to Pink Sasquatch, you then totally failed to address his question, despite it being 'easy'.I fail to see how Mark 24 being a demagogue or otherwise is relevant to answering a fairly straightforward question from Pink Sasquatch.How does your argument that Differ from the argument that the first cause cannot itself have a cause. At best all you are arguing is that there was some supernatural source of 'The first information', but that certainly doesn't provide proof against evolution. There is already plenty of extant information present in the system before evolution comes into the picture. Yes, but I don't intend to read the whole thing again just to see what particular definition of 'macro-evolution' you may have used. You appear not to have read the whole discussion though since you previously suggested that it should only be read from page 18, in order that your posts not appear off topic. If you had read the whole thread then you might have noticed that I was the 3rd person to post on it. So perhaps since you only came to the thread halfway through you should take more care directing other people to read the whole thing. As has been pointed out previously were you to have read every post on the site, or even much of the starting source materials provided, you would already have the answers to most of your questions, you may not have liked them, believed them or understood them, but you would have had them.So why not change the current trend and specify exactly what definition of 'macro-evolution' you are going by. Alternatively you could just use your encyclopedic recall of every post on this thread to direct to the post in which you gave a definition for 'macro-evolution'.TTFN,WK

yxifix,I think we are all talking past each other because you are using different definitions for scientific terms. So, I will list some defintions (my own) and we will see if you can agree to these definitions.Theory of Evolution: Natural selection and random mutation resulted in the biodiversity we see today. Evolution starts with the first life.Spontaneous Generation: The production of complex organisms in a short period of time from non-living matter (eg maggots from meat).Abiogenesis: The production of chemical replicators from non-replicating chemicals. This is in contrast to spontaneous generation in that Abiogenesis theorizes very simple reactions while S.G. theorizes very complex organisms straight from non-living matter.I would agree that spontaneous generation has been thoroughly refuted. However, this does not rule out abiogenesis which theorizes very simple replicators instead of the complex, whole organisms found in spontaneous generation.Also, what prevents information from spontaneously appearing. Wouldn't random keystrokes create information at some point?

Lets have a fun... lets play ...the weakest link! Oh really? Assertion. You have to show evidence for your premise. Or should I teach you something about evidences and premises? ....btw, this is offtopic, you have still chance to stop discussing this matter otherwise I'll make you a forum clown once again. (the only way you can prevent this is to stop to be ignorant, mark) And we've reached the part where you close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears & go, "IS TOO! IS TOO! IS TOO!"Hohooo... Wau... What are you talking about? So Newton's discovery from the year (I think 1666) about gravitation have to be proved once again each day, each year? Unbelievable demagogy once again! Mark, mark. You should stop this (I've said something about a forum clown, haven't I?)
Well.... maybe we should try to make an experiment every day to prove if a gravitation or magnetism still works... hm? Again, demagogic question. Already explained. Stop it, this is hopeless from your side. I am just VERY VERY CURIOUS why you haven't answered to this... so I'll repeat it again and again and again, mark, ok? Until you answer. So please....So you are saying if I want to find out if a computer can do an operation [randomly selecting letters] itself without inserted program and without a man to help it to do so, do I have to try experiment on every computer in the world? Please answer clearly, thank you. So we can get to the point very quickly.Thank you for the answer. Ohohohoh.... I knew you will try this, that's your simple thinking, mark. But it's just another hopeless attempt. So - Demagogy once again! Let me explain:
You played football in the Sahara desert (question was why it is so difficult to play there)... BUT the most important fact is surface (!) you didn't play football on whole Sahara, did you? So in fact you have to go to Sahara to try your experiments, but only on the same surfaces you played on! So the important is "sand" in your experiments.Lets apply it to Pasteur's experiment - "football is difficult to play" = spontaneous generation, "Sahara desert" = "anywhere", "sand" = place where bacterias are generated.Soooo....mark, my question still stands:
Do I have to go further 100 m, 200 m, 300 m, 400 m, 500 m,.... in to the desert (sand) in order to prove it's the same everywhere in the Sahara desert?Have nice time when searching for the answer in your head. ups, you do have a problem now. I have to just smile at this moment, mark. So you are saying there could be bacterias, which generate themselves by spontaneusly appearing? (I'll repeat this question you'll forget to answer, as well) This is nothing just demagogy... you example is not linked with Pasteur's one in any way as proved above. And after you'll answer all questions, we can start to talk about an Argument from ignorance. ....I'll have to teach you what does that mean, I see. WAU... so THIS is really funny now! Demagogy once again... proved above. Demagogy once again! ....In my experiments I have proved that information can't create itself by accident without another information. Not that it doesn't exist ... so I'll repeat it once again - stop this. (you know what I've said about a forum clown, don't you? Stop to be an ignorant, please, thank you) Well, for me it's difficult to grasp how come you can present yourself on this forum as a clown .... how old are you? 17 or 77 ?Bye.PS: Don't try to fool the truth.PS2: Please explain - Evolution of a chicken -> Ready..... steady ..... GO!!!!!This message has been edited by yxifix, 08-17-2004 01:36 AM

You don't know what you are talking about... This is just your rich fantasy, your assertion, nothing more. Maybe you can describe how a hand evoluted in stages through these small mutations, hm? ...well. not a hand, both hands in fact... that would be interesting reading. It was just a question of time, wasn't it? Heh, maybe we could discuss what the Evoultion theory is thinking about a Neanderthal, hm? But this is offtopic. And I'm asking you... why 0001 is blue, why it is not green or brown? THIS is the important question. Please read whole discussion (from page 18). I don't want to start it all over again.

Of course it will be easy. But he has forgotten to answer on whole part of my point... that's why I said "before replying". ....I won't let him skip almost everything I have mentioned. It wouldn't be fair. what? Well, I'm talking about existing intelligence so intelligence can have a cause.
Information/Accident stuff proved here. If it is not a proof you have to show me how the proof looks like. Thank you very much. at least... (when I've started to post messages) Yes, there is also a discussion about 'junk DNA' and stuff which is offtopic for me... I'm talking about a proof against evolution. ....that means, read from page 18 and Percy's duscussions before (about "0001 blue" examples) I have posted over 120 posts here, my friend... and still no answer. Hm? Any idea why? I'm showing a proof against evolution.... and if macroevolution is not possible, evolution is not possible... it doesn't matter in fact. Evolution stops at the 'beginning' itself - creation of DNA code. (Proved, if not, show me an example of a proof)So again, you were just talking but not answering:Please show me how an information can "arise" itself.
Show us all an example and then apply it to some part of macro-evolution. Thank you.
Otherwise I'm not interested in your fantastic dreams about "arising" information, sorry.

Before replying you have to show what is wrong with my proof here. Thank you. If it is not a proof, you have to show me an example of a proof. Thank you again. Please stop this, I'm not saying it does, I haven't said that, please quote me if I did! Stop to be ignorant ! If you have no arguments, rather just shut your mouth and be quiet, please. Thank you. read thisOf course... using intelligence which will understand such word created by accident. Simple, isn't it? Exactly according to my proved definitions here
You see?This message has been edited by yxifix, 08-16-2004 07:45 PM

I have read your infamous message 226 more than once, and have seen you use it as your proof on too many occasions.It contains:
1) asserted definitions
2) the story of Pasteur and spontaneous generation
3) an analogy involving a computer in a locked room
4) insults to MarkPlease explain which of these points is proof and how it explains your hypothesis on origin-of-information.Insulting me, telling me to reread the thread, or calling this a "hopeless attempt" will do nothing but reveal that there is no proof in message 226, since you refuse to defend it.

You have to show evidence for your premise... show the one example which is not the case of those definitions. Thank you. Is it a proof or not? If not, please show me an example of a proof thanks...PS: Don't forget to answer about "DNA and million other things" post. Why aren't you explaining?OK, I have finished for today... happy thinking.

I think it's more like bluster is your way of avoiding discussion, for otherwise you would explain why mutations cannot accumulate to the point of speciation and beyond. Allele frequency change and random mutation are processes that we observe taking place today, and so we conclude that those processes are responsible for speciation.I've never seen anyone walk from Boston to San Francisco, but I've often seen people walk a considerable distance. From this I can reasonably conjecture that one could walk all the way from Boston to San Francisco. Someone could object that I've never actually observed anyone walking between these cities and that therefore it isn't possible, and silly as this would be it is the same as your claim that mutations cannot accumulate to produce significant change in organisms. Just as there seems nothing to stop someone stringing together enough steps to walk from Boston to San Francisco, there is also no apparent obstacle to stringing together enough mutations to cause speciation. Unraveling specific evolutionary pathways and aligning them with specific mutations for morphological structures like the hand is in many cases likely to prove impossible because mutations and allele frequency changes don't leave a paper trail. But we can be confident it developed through the same processes we observe taking place today.Asking such questions is similar to asking how a particular grain of sand in the desert arrived at its current location. In most cases we would be unable to answer that question in any detail because there simply isn't sufficient evidence. But we can confidently say that it was due to geological and environmental processes, or perhaps it arrived off the sole of someone's shoe, and of course there are other possibilities. Someone could object that this is impossible to know because we have no evidence for that particular sand grain and that therefore it must have arrived there by some other means, but that would be ridiculous. It isn't much different to say that the evolutionary processes we see in action today could not be responsible for hand evolution simply because evolutionary processes do not leave hard evidence of specific evolutionary pathways behind. I'm afraid I don't have any answers except the ones you've already been provided. But your question isn't relevant to the point I was making, something you would have realized had you read Message 99 more carefully. It had been asserted that random mutation cannot add information, and my example was an illustration of how random mutation can increase the amount of information in a population's genome. The example is valid no matter how codes align with colors.--Percy

Oh yes, of course, he hasn't provided specific muatations linke to the evolution of hair, nails, teeth, lungs, etc... and therefore his being unable to provide an exhaustive list of every mutation leading to the development of modern vertebrates clearly exonerates you of the burdern of answering a very simple question. Sorry, I got mixed up since you have been banging on about Mark24's demagoguery but I didn't notice you describing Pink sasquatch like that previously, so you have yet to even show that he is employing demagogic rhetoric. So your contention is that if your proof is insufficient the I have to be able to show you what the proof is, even if what you want proved isn't actually provable, before you will admit that what you presented wasn't actually proof?Doesn't that seem a bit illogical to you? I've seen any number of answers to you on this thread alone, and they have all been as water off a duck's back on you. No you aren't, you are recounting an already very well known experiment which showed that the old concept of spontaneous generation, such as flies growing from rotting meat, was mistaken. As has previously been pointed out this experiment is not a proof, it is however an incredibly well supported observation. It is also entirely irrelevant to evolution and even to chemical evolutionary theories of abiogensis, none of which presupose something arising from nothing, except perhaps right back at the very start of the universe.Did you ever give a reference for your supposedly often repeated computer exeriment, I didn't notice one. And once again, an experiment is not proof, it merely supports or fails to support a given hypothesis. Ah, an example of a proof? Easy enough here is an example of a mathematical proof and here are some proofs more in line with your thinking.TTFN,WK