Fossil Challenge Old Evolution Theory

[rossum]

There is evidence that humans have existed with Dinosaurs.

References please. I hope that you are not referring to Paluxy, this is what CMI has to say about Paluxy:‘Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.’ Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have long since withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly human tracks may be artefacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs.

Source: Arguments we think creationists should NOT use

The amont of dust on the moon is not consistent with the amount of time the moon is believed to have existed.

Again, this is another “Argument we think creationists should NOT use”:‘Moon-Dust thickness proves a young moon’. For a long time, creationists claimed that the dust layer on the moon was too thin if dust had truly been falling on it for billions of years. They based this claim on early estimates—by evolutionists—of the influx of moon dust, and worries that the moon landers would sink into this dust layer. But these early estimates were wrong, and by the time of the Apollo landings, NASA was not worried about sinking. So the dust layer thickness can’t be used as proof of a young moon (or of an old one either).

Fluids specialists in France have shown that the mechanism of laying down rock layers is simultaneously not over eons of time. This is consistent with the layers laid down when Mount St. Helen’s blew.

Fluid specialists have shown that under certain circumstances rock layers can be laid down quickly. This is not new - it has been known since Pompeii was excavated in the 18th century - similar layers from Vesuvius are found at Pompeii. The specific circumstances are detectable in the rocks thus formed. Those particular circumstances do not apply to the great majority of rock we see today.

There is evidence that Granite was created instantaneously. Polonium halos in the rock should have dissipated, if there was slow cooling as scientists say.

False. Polonium is a decay product of the radioactive gas Radon. Being a gas, Radon can seep through tiny cracks in rocks after they are formed and deposit Polonium when it decays. Radon is a decay product of Uranium, which has a half life measured in the millions of years. Granites contain a proportion of Uranium. All Polonium halos found are associated with rocks which contain Uranium.

See Tests for radon in private water supplies should be extended for some of the problems this causes. For more detail see Claim CF201: Polonium haloes indicate a young earth.

The problem is that the same scientists that believe in the 63 million years ignore all this data. You can’t have an honest discussion when this information is being ignored.

The problem is that some creationists do not realise that the arguments they are using are not even supported by other creationists because they are so weak. When an argument has been refuted many times and does not even convince other creationists then it is time to find a different argument.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The Arcticle did state, homo-erectus and , Homo habilis. These two species live side by side. Even though the article never mention homo-sapiens, I do think it is possible that homo-sapiens probably live along with those species.

What you think is possible does not constitute scientific proof I’m afraid. There is no evidence of any H. sapiens from as early as these new finds.

All that has happened is that we have been able to discard an incorrect idea about the evolution of these early hominids:

Old theory:

  *H. habilis* --> *H. erectus* --> *H. sapiens*

New theory:

Either:

  *H. habilis* --+--> *H. habilis*
               |
               +--> *H. erectus* --> *H. sapiens*

or:

  *H. ???????* --+--> *H. habilis*
               |
               +--> *H. erectus* --> *H. sapiens*

We still have evolution within the Hominidae, we now have a less inaccurate picture of what probably happened.

There was also another evidence that the “supposed” ancestor of a dinosaur.

Scare quotes do not an argument make.

Another article states,

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Fossils found in the United States show dinosaurs lived along side their ancestors for tens of millions of years, disproving long-held theories assuming they quickly replaced their predecessors, according to a new study.

Source: news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070720/sc_afp/uspaleontology;_ylt=AoglPFKDOuwwLuuFklCFi597hMgF

Notice the similarity in both position.

In both cases new evidence has changed some details of the theory. That is what science does, it adjusts theories when required to by new evidence. All you have shown us is that science is working the way it should.

rossum

 

[cpayne]

Hi, Rossum. I have no problem with your argument in the previous post; I just wondered if anyone had ever pointed out that your signature line logically could not be true.

Dear Moderator: This was just a slight deviation; now we’re back on track with the thread.

 

[rossum]

I just wondered if anyone had ever pointed out that your signature line logically could not be true.

Frequently. There is a thread in the non-Catholic religions form here.

The original source of my sig is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For a philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

rossum

 

[edwest2]

The ultimate truth is Jesus Christ, the Father and the Holy Spirit.

I believe humans and dinosaurs lived together. The term ‘dinosaur’ is fairly recent. Clearly, the dragons of old were dinosaurs.

Lastly, I believe that what are being called ‘ancient’ humans all lived together as well.

The Bible is the ultimate reference source, regardless of anyone’s insistence to the contrary.

God bless,
Ed

 

[abu_kamoon]

The ultimate truth is Jesus Christ, the Father and the Holy Spirit.

I believe humans and dinosaurs lived together. The term ‘dinosaur’ is fairly recent.
Clearly, the dragons of old were dinosaurs.

Lastly, I believe that what are being called ‘ancient’ humans all lived together as well.

The Bible is the ultimate reference source, regardless of anyone’s insistence to the
contrary.

God bless,
Ed

---

I agree with you Ed. Evolutionism, the religious belief that we are here as a result of natural forces is contrary to what the Bible states. Some people think that you can reconcile the two compeating religions, but you cant. Either one or the other is wrong.

 

[Steve40]

The problem is that some creationists do not realise that the arguments they are using are not even supported by other creationists because they are so weak. When an argument has been refuted many times and does not even convince other creationists then it is time to find a different argument.

rossum

What about a valid mechanism? Why should I believe in evolution when the belief that macro evolution has occured is statistically incredible. Show me a computer simulation where you randomly knock the code around and end up with anything meaningful. Our DNA is vastly more complex then any computer code we have written. The burdan for proof is upon th scientist not the Bible. Until they prove it, I’m sticking with Scripture.

 

[rossum]

Show me a computer simulation where you randomly knock the code around and end up with anything meaningful.

Certainly: Lenski et al. The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features.

Further details of Lenski’s work are available here.

Believe it or not, scientists have thought about the questions you raise, have done the experiments and have incorporated the results into the theory of evolution. That is what scientists do; they think of questions, do experiments to find the answers and add those answers to their theories.

rossum

 

[Steve40]

Certainly: Lenski et al. The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features.

Further details of Lenski’s work are available here.

Believe it or not, scientists have thought about the questions you raise, have done the experiments and have incorporated the results into the theory of evolution. That is what scientists do; they think of questions, do experiments to find the answers and add those answers to their theories.

rossum

I’d like to see their replication algorythm. There is no way that there isn’t some design manipulation going on here. And were the complex functions formed so complex that they couldn’t understand them. Notice how they don’t say what the new functions were and what they did. That simulator is load of bull.

A truly random self replicating process would also replicate to the point of not being able to replicate. How many cases of this have they seen. I’ve seen it many times. We call them bugs. I’ll tell you one thing, if this new program is true, their mindless self replicator is a better programer than I am.

Just as much as you have told me not to believe everything I read before, I can definately say it to you now.

 

[rossum]

I’d like to see their replication algorythm.

Did you look at the resources I pointed you to? Each of the members of the population had to reproduce itself, as well as solving the logic problems for rewards. That means that in principle each member of the population could have had a different set of instructions to reproduce itself. If you really are that interested, then download a copy of Avida for yourself (available here), together with the exact configuration files that Lenski used, available on the same link. This is a reproducible experiment - you can reproduce it youfself if you are interested.

There is no way that there isn’t some design manipulation going on here.

Without proof this is just hot air. Evidence please.

And were the complex functions formed so complex that they couldn’t understand them.

How is that relevant to anything? Different people understand different things. Einstein could understand things that I cannot - what does that have to do with anything relevant to this discussion?

A truly random self replicating process would also replicate to the point of not being able to replicate.

What on earth are you trying to say here? That a self-replicating process does not self-replicate? You are going to have to rephrase this if you want me to follow what you are trying to say.

I’ll tell you one thing, if this new program is true, their mindless self replicator is a better programer than I am.

The Avida program is “true”. You can download it from the link I gave above, together with Lenski’s configuration files and run the whole thing for yourself.

Just as much as you have told me not to believe everything I read before, I can definately say it to you now.

The difference is that you don’t just have to read this for yourself - you can download the same software and re-run the whole experiment for yourself. That is one of the things about science, if you doubt part of it then you can repeat the experiment. This is a particularly easy experiment to reproduce.

rossum

 

[Steve40]

Did you look at the resources I pointed you to? Each of the members of the population had to reproduce itself, as well as solving the logic problems for rewards. That means that in principle each member of the population could have had a different set of instructions to reproduce itself. If you really are that interested, then download a copy of Avida for yourself (available here), together with the exact configuration files that Lenski used, available on the same link. This is a reproducible experiment - you can reproduce it youfself if you are interested.

Without proof this is just hot air. Evidence please.

How is that relevant to anything? Different people understand different things. Einstein could understand things that I cannot - what does that have to do with anything relevant to this discussion?

What on earth are you trying to say here? That a self-replicating process does not self-replicate? You are going to have to rephrase this if you want me to follow what you are trying to say.

The Avida program is “true”. You can download it from the link I gave above, together with Lenski’s configuration files and run the whole thing for yourself.

The difference is that you don’t just have to read this for yourself - you can download the same software and re-run the whole experiment for yourself. That is one of the things about science, if you doubt part of it then you can repeat the experiment. This is a particularly easy experiment to reproduce.

rossum

I don’t think you understand how integrated software and hardware systems work. The very operating system and hardware they are using would have to be randomly manipulated in order for the test to be prototypical. And I’m not buying that just because you don’t understand it doesn’t mean isn’t true. I understand it. They have developed a program that will develop something from nothing, but the fact still remains, their program was something to begin with i.e. design. Show me where they can randomly manipulate hardware, software and operating system and come up with something meaningful. They are not doing what you think they are. Did they mess with the internals of the processor during this test? Of course not, because it wouldn’t show what they wanted to show to begin with.

I’m beginning to think that unless you think like an engineer you won’t question anything and just believe what so called “science” throws at you. Why don’t you ask Microsoft to use their random function generator and see what kind of designs they end up. Maybe Microsoft does believe in evolutionary processes that would explain a lot.

 

[rossum]

I don’t think you understand how integrated software and hardware systems work.

Wrong. I started as a grunt Programmer longer ago that I care to remember - Burroughs Extended Algol 60 on punch cards anyone? I have worked my way up through various hardware, systems, analysis and software positions to Technical Project Manager. I am well aware of how hardware and software systems work.

The very operating system and hardware they are using would have to be randomly manipulated in order for the test to be prototypical.

That would be a model of a world where the laws of physics and chemistry changed at random. Evolution models the real world where the laws of physics (= operating system) do not change. The random element in evolution is mutations between generations. Those are simulated in Avida by random changes to some programs as they are copied from generation to generation. It is a good enough model to suppport the results claimed.

They have developed a program that will develop something from nothing,

Exactly so. Thankyou for acknowledging this.

but the fact still remains, their program was something to begin with i.e. design.

Evolution is not a theory of the origin of the universe, or of the earth or of life. It only covers the development of life after abiogenesis. Lenski’s experiment starts with very simple and primitive programs and uses evolution to develop more complex programs by the mechanism of mutation and selection.

If you want evolution to start from nothing then you are not being consistent, creationism also have something to start with i.e. God. Evolution starts with earth and a consistent universe, creationism starts with God. Neither starts from nothing.

Show me where they can randomly manipulate hardware, software and operating system and come up with something meaningful. They are not doing what you think they are. Did they mess with the internals of the processor during this test? Of course not, because it wouldn’t show what they wanted to show to begin with.

They were not testing a scenario where the laws of physics changed at random. You are criticising the experiment for not doing something that it did not intend to do. Is the Bible wrong because it does not tell me the exact value of the charge on the electron? That is the sort of criticism you are making of Lenski.

Why don’t you ask Microsoft to use their random function generator and see what kind of designs they end up. Maybe Microsoft does believe in evolutionary processes that would explain a lot.

Genetic Algorithms have been used to solve problems in Acoustics, Aerospace engineering, Astronomy and astrophysics, Chemistry, Electrical engineering, Financial markets, Game playing, Geophysics, Materials engineering, Mathematics and algorithmics, Military and law enforcement, Molecular biology, Pattern recognition and data mining, Robotics, Routing and scheduling and Systems engineering. See here for details.

Don’t get me started on the subject of random number generators - I will get even more boring than I already am. For fun try LavaRand, for the real thing read RFC 4086.

rossum

 

[Steve40]

Wrong. I started as a grunt Programmer longer ago that I care to remember - Burroughs Extended Algol 60 on punch cards anyone? I have worked my way up through various hardware, systems, analysis and software positions to Technical Project Manager. I am well aware of how hardware and software systems work.

That would be a model of a world where the laws of physics and chemistry changed at random. Evolution models the real world where the laws of physics (= operating system) do not change. The random element in evolution is mutations between generations. Those are simulated in Avida by random changes to some programs as they are copied from generation to generation. It is a good enough model to suppport the results claimed.

Exactly so. Thankyou for acknowledging this.

Evolution is not a theory of the origin of the universe, or of the earth or of life. It only covers the development of life after abiogenesis. Lenski’s experiment starts with very simple and primitive programs and uses evolution to develop more complex programs by the mechanism of mutation and selection.

If you want evolution to start from nothing then you are not being consistent, creationism also have something to start with i.e. God. Evolution starts with earth and a consistent universe, creationism starts with God. Neither starts from nothing.

They were not testing a scenario where the laws of physics changed at random. You are criticising the experiment for not doing something that it did not intend to do. Is the Bible wrong because it does not tell me the exact value of the charge on the electron? That is the sort of criticism you are making of Lenski.

Genetic Algorithms have been used to solve problems in Acoustics, Aerospace engineering, Astronomy and astrophysics, Chemistry, Electrical engineering, Financial markets, Game playing, Geophysics, Materials engineering, Mathematics and algorithmics, Military and law enforcement, Molecular biology, Pattern recognition and data mining, Robotics, Routing and scheduling and Systems engineering. See here for details.

Don’t get me started on the subject of random number generators - I will get even more boring than I already am. For fun try LavaRand, for the real thing read RFC 4086.

rossum

What they are talking about mutating is the very code that makes it work which means that the mutation could just as easily make it stop working. How often did the mutations of their algorythm end life or future generations? If they did it correctly their algorythm would end long before they could get to another life form. The laws of physics as you imply do not keep life marching along. In fact more of the laws of physics kill than anything else.

So Lenski’s believes that someone had to start it all. What a miricle. If I’m going to believe in that miricle why not believe in the miricle that the Bible talks about.

I think you are confusing analitical tools which make use of Random funtions with the development of applications which have very specific functions. The development of a living organism or even the changing of one kind of organism e.g. an amiba into a human being is simply not possble with a white noise generator. It’s a stretch of faith and a faith I don’t care to believe in.

How many millions of years do you think it would take for one of your projects to be developed using the white noise generator? How many copies of the code simply would not work or would need to be thrown away? What laws of physics would you need to get this to work? In order for your death and selection to work you would have to kill a lot of code. Remember, the process is still random no mater what physics you want to throw in there. The second law of thermo dynamics would apply, but greater or less energy due to a difference in state does not translate to additional function.

No offense but I think evolutionary scientists are extreemly unrealisic. They live in a dream world.

 

[KarenNC]

**What they are talking about mutating is the very code that makes it work which means that the mutation could just as easily make it stop working. How often did the mutations of their algorythm end life or future generations? If they did it correctly their algorythm would end long before they could get to another life form. The laws of physics as you imply do not keep life marching along. In fact more of the laws of physics kill than anything else. **

Natural selection does not claim that all changes are beneficial or that every change persists. In fact, quite the opposite. It is only the mutations that give the organism some advantage, however slight, to survive in its particular environment long enough to pass along that genetic material and to find a mate to aid in that process that persist. The exact same mutation in a different environment may be beneficial, neutral, lethal or in between.

** If I’m going to believe in that miricle why not believe in the miricle that the Bible talks about.**

Interesting. Following that reasoning, why not instead believe in the miracle that the Vedas talk about instead, or that the Greeks and Romans talk about, that the Egyptians or the Norse talked about, that the Maori talk about, etc. The Bible is not the only source for stories of miracles or miraculous beginnings.

How many copies of the code simply would not work or would need to be thrown away? What laws of physics would you need to get this to work? In order for your death and selection to work you would have to kill a lot of code.

See answer to your first statement.

** Remember, the process is still random no mater what physics you want to throw in there. **

The theory of natural selection is not totally random. There are indeed outside forces acting on the organism which affect it—climate, food supply, disease, population pressures, competition for mates, etc.

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_toc_01
might be helpful.

 

[rossum]

What they are talking about mutating is the very code that makes it work which means that the mutation could just as easily make it stop working.

Correct. Each program needed to include the code to copy itself into the next generation - it needed to be able to replicate just as living organisms need to replicate if their genes are to be carried into the next generation. If we have a mutation which renders us sterile then our genes do not get passed on to the next generation. If Lenski’s programs did not copy themselves then they also would not get copied into the next generation. Lenski’s programs were an accurate reflection of life in this respect.

How often did the mutations of their algorythm end life or future generations?

I don’t know. There is a complete line of descent from Lenski’s results available at myxo.css.msu.edu/papers/nature2003/case-study/lineage.html which you can have a look at if you want.

If they did it correctly their algorythm would end long before they could get to another life form.

You are pontificating about the results of their experiment without apparently having run their experiment for yourself. Lenski et al have published their results in enough detail that you can reproduce them if you want. Unless you do that you are in no position to say what did or did not happen since you were not there.

The laws of physics as you imply do not keep life marching along. In fact more of the laws of physics kill than anything else.

Life evolves to fit the physics it finds already in place, just as a puddle fits the hole it finds itself in. Something with a mutation that prevents reproduction will not make it into the next generation. By definition, any genes that do make it to the next generation must be able to reproduce themselves.

So Lenski’s believes that someone had to start it all.

I have no idea what Lenski believes, if you want to know you can contact him at lenski@msu.edu All Lenski is doing is taking things from just after the origin of life on earth: the earth, universe and the laws of physics and chemistry were all in place and a small populations of very primitive self-reproducing organisms were present. No more than that. Lenski was not attempting to discover the origin of life, the universe and everything, he was focusing on “The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features” as the title of his paper said. You are wrong to criticise him for not doing what he did not set out to do.

The development of a living organism or even the changing of one kind of organism e.g. an amiba into a human being is simply not possble with a white noise generator.

Then do an experiment to show it. If you want to convince scientists then you need to have the data to back up your statements. I have Lenski, and a lot of other work to back me up. You just have bald statements of what you believe. In science that just won’t hack it.

How many millions of years do you think it would take for one of your projects to be developed using the white noise generator?

About 3.5 billion years which is how long it has taken random mutation and natural selection to develop my genome to the point where I can deliver my projects.

I suggest that you read a piece I wrote elsewhere on The Evolution of Boojumase which shows, in some mathematical detail, how a 100 amino protein can evolve from scratch in just over two million years. The selection part of random mutation and natural selection is very efficient at weeding out the bad mutations and propagating the good mutations. I suggest you have a read.

What laws of physics would you need to get this to work?

The laws of physics are those in place before life originates. Life adapts to fit the environment it is in, so it is adapted to the laws of physics in our current universe.

rossum

 

[Steve40]

**
Natural selection does not claim that all changes are beneficial or that every change persists. In fact, quite the opposite. It is only the mutations that give the organism some advantage, however slight, to survive in its particular environment long enough to pass along that genetic material and to find a mate to aid in that process that persist. The exact same mutation in a different environment may be beneficial, neutral, lethal or in between.

Interesting. Following that reasoning, why not instead believe in the miracle that the Vedas talk about instead, or that the Greeks and Romans talk about, that the Egyptians or the Norse talked about, that the Maori talk about, etc. The Bible is not the only source for stories of miracles or miraculous beginnings.

The theory of natural selection is not totally random. There are indeed outside forces acting on the organism which affect it—climate, food supply, disease, population pressures, competition for mates, etc.

evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_toc_01**
might be helpful.

True, there are many things I could place my faith in, evolution being one of them. Faith is a gift and that gift has been given to me in Christ Jesus and my mother the Holy Catholic Church for how to follow Him.

So, there are outside forces at work in natural selection and they control what mutations are passed along for survival? What is the frequency of these outside forces and their impact verse the frequency of mutation. Again even if you have these outside forces which I personally don’t see, if they get out of sink with your nice mutations your dead. Have you ever heard of an ice age, have you ever heard of climate changes. Have you ever heard of floods and earth quakes. The frequency of environmental changes is way too high for your nice mutations to work.

Another problem is population. Inorder for the order of magnitude of change to occure from one life form to another and allow nice mutations pass along, you would need an astonomical population. It isn’t just about time I submit that there has never been the natural resources on this planet to support the population which would allow if it ever occured, positive mutations to pass through. I’m telling you, it’s smoke and mirrors. They see what they want to see and really don’t ask the tough questions. They don’t crunch the true statitical probabilities because they want so much to believe that evolution is true.

 

[hecd2]

Scientifically many things are proven. It is the difference between emperical science and theoretical science. Emperical science it is based upon what is observable and repeatable. .

I should like you to suggest to me one proposition of science that you think is *proven, *ie shown to be true under all conditions beyond all doubt. (you won’t be able to - I will always be able to point to a condition under which any scientific proposition is doubtful). By the way, the word you are trying to use is empirical not emperical. As any other scientist, or any philosopher of science will tell you, conclusions based on empirical data can be far more tentative than theoretical conclusions.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

I believe humans and dinosaurs lived together. The term ‘dinosaur’ is fairly recent. Clearly, the dragons of old were dinosaurs.

What about the fairies at the bottom of the garden? Are they angels?

Lastly, I believe that what are being called ‘ancient’ humans all lived together as well.

For heavens sake, don’t walk under any ladders, watch out for black cats crossing your path, and get some energetic crystals under your pillow.

The Bible is the ultimate reference source, regardless of anyone’s insistence to the contrary.

Why don’t we shut down all the research programs in all the universities in all the world and go back to a 3rd Century AD understanding of the natural world. It’s all in the bible.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
where you will find arguments based on reason, man’s greatest faculty.

 

[edwest2]

Yes, I see. I am going to stop everything. Just little old me.

I suggest you fully examine the Theory you believe in. The mutations miracle is nonsense. For any outside pressures to tell genetic material to “mutate” in this or that direction is nonsense. Also, a virtually infinite number of mutations would have to occur to cover all the possibilities. And that would be in a stable, unchanging environment. Example: Animals needs a thicker coat, but the mutations come out with 1) Longer tail. 2) Change to toenail color. 3) Slightly increased sense of smell. 4) Extra leg. However, 3) is killed in an avalanche, 1) is eaten before passing along the trait and 2) turns out to be sterile. The odds keep increasing for that one particular type of animal, and in the wrong direction.

I believe, with God all things are possible.
Not, with evolution all things are possible.

Your appeal to emotion is not rational. It attributes to me actions I have no intention of taking. It also insults my beliefs.

God bless and peace,
Ed

 

[hecd2]

I suggest you fully examine the Theory you believe in.

I don’t *believe *it. As a professional scientist, I *accept *it because the evidence for it is overwhelming. I have examined it more thoroughly, in more depth than you can even imagine. Your absurd strawman below demonstrates that I have studied the subject vastly more than you have.

The mutations miracle is nonsense. For any outside pressures to tell genetic material to “mutate” in this or that direction is nonsense.

I agree - I think it’s unlikely that mutations are ‘directed’. In science we have found a little bit of evidence for directed mutations - the strongest provided by Barry Hall’s seeming evidence for directed hypermutation in starving bacteria, but subsequent work has shown that the mutations were undirected. See also work by John Cairns and Patricia Foster. I can give you a full list of references for this work, except that I know you won’t look a single one of them up.I suspect that you don’t even know what I’m talking about.

Also, a virtually infinite number of mutations would have to occur to cover all the possibilities.

Really? Can you explain, with references, why you think that?

Example: Animals needs a thicker coat, but the mutations come out with 1) Longer tail. 2) Change to toenail color. 3) Slightly increased sense of smell. 4) Extra leg. However, 3) is killed in an avalanche, 1) is eaten before passing along the trait and 2) turns out to be sterile. The odds keep increasing for that one particular type of animal, and in the wrong direction.

Fine, modestly good critique, if your population is 4 animals (it has many other poblems but the population of four trumps all other errors), but most viable populations are tens of thousands. Are you saying that in a population of 100,000 animals there is no variation of coat thickness and therefore none that have a thicker coat? Did you know that you carry about three viable mutations in your protein encoding genome, and do you also realise that individuals can have variations in more than one characteristic? Your idea about how evolution works is grotesquely wrong

Your appeal to emotion is not rational. It attributes to me actions I have no intention of taking. It also insults my beliefs.

I appeal to reason not emotion. Your understanding of evolutionary biology is extremely poor. For the sake of truth and integrity, you really need to learn some more about it before you criticise it.

Alec
evolutionpages.com