Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
90,301 - 90,320 of 114,618 Comments Last updated 22 min ago

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95582
Jul 27, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
http://www.garnertedarmstrong. org/pubs/evolution_biglie.shtm

The strata are dated according to the fossils found in them. The fossils are dated according to the strata in which they are found. Does that sound rather arbitrary? It is.
And its also untrue.

The primary dating source for fossils is radiometric dating based on the layers of igneous rock that a sediment is sandwiched between.

The use of similar fossils as an index to date other rocks is a secondary method and not the actual source of the primary dating. However, thanks to the consistency of the fossil record, index dates have generally be found to be quite reliable. Don't take evilushinists' word for it. Oil and mineral geologists have a lot of money riding on getting their drilling right, and THEY use index fossils a lot as they have proven reliable. If the fossils indicate that a stratum is Carboniferous, then thats a bloody good indicator. Don't argue with scientists, ask the guys bank rolling billion dollar prospecting.

Junking the BS from your highly unreliable and poorly informed blog source is like shooting fish in a barrel. I suggest you find a better source. How about the actual science?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95583
Jul 27, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
http://www.garnertedarmstrong.org/pubs/evolut...
"Evolutionist are fond of pointing to "MICRO-evolution," meaning the many VARIETIES within a kind, and applying it to their theory that a kind evolved from a different kind! This is utterly untrue. Whether pygmy or gigantic Swede, they are both human beings, and inter-fertile. Whether a snowshoe rabbit is white in the winter or brown in the summer, it is still a snowshoe rabbit, and is not in the process of becoming a whale, or a horse, or a monkey.
Your blogger source might find his simplistic thinking challenged by distant relatives like horse/donkey and lion/tiger. More so by Ring Species. But I suspect he has never even heard of them.

Nor does his blind insight offer any reasonable explanation for the convergence between different "kinds" that we see in the fossil record. Mammal-like reptiles showing the sequence of development of the 3-boned middle ear in mammals, 30+ dino/avian fossils that mix features of each group, not to mention tiktaalik, or Homo Erectus for that matter.

Nah, just ignore all that. Does this fool ever get anything right?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95585
Jul 27, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
And its also untrue.
The primary dating source for fossils is radiometric dating based on the layers of igneous rock that a sediment is sandwiched between.
The use of similar fossils as an index to date other rocks is a secondary method and not the actual source of the primary dating. However, thanks to the consistency of the fossil record, index dates have generally be found to be quite reliable. Don't take evilushinists' word for it. Oil and mineral geologists have a lot of money riding on getting their drilling right, and THEY use index fossils a lot as they have proven reliable. If the fossils indicate that a stratum is Carboniferous, then thats a bloody good indicator. Don't argue with scientists, ask the guys bank rolling billion dollar prospecting.
Junking the BS from your highly unreliable and poorly informed blog source is like shooting fish in a barrel. I suggest you find a better source. How about the actual science?
Kabonngg!!

(And I don't give those out often.)

Nicely done.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95586
Jul 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html



Debunking Evolution:
problems between the theory and reality;
the false science of evolution

These top creationist arguments present the truth about evolution. Top creationist arguments - every one.

"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.
drinK tHE Hive

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95587
Jul 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Euthanasia And Prostitution Should Be Legal And Located In The Same Building...

http://soshable.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/0...

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95588
Jul 27, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
http://www.newgeology.us/prese ntation32.html
Debunking Evolution:
problems between the theory and reality;
the false science of evolution
These top creationist arguments present the truth about evolution. Top creationist arguments - every one.
"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.
Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.
David Bloody Coppedge?

The creationist twit who was fired by NASA/JPL for incompetence? And who subsequently sued NASA and lost?

THAT Coppedge?

Try for a more credible source, willya?

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95589
Jul 27, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part....
Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen?
Arguing that microevolution happens but that macro doesn't is like arguing that someone can drive 1 mile but they can't drive 100 miles.

If you accept that they can travel, then the distance just requires multiple versions of the smaller travel.

Micro evolution is a change in a gene which is passed onto the next generation.

If that generation has another small change in a different gene and passes it along, then the 3rd generation has 2 changes different from the parent generation.

They keep adding up.
drink The hivE

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95590
Jul 27, 2013
 
No Kidding - Or The Etherians...

http://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/he-...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95592
Jul 28, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
http://www.newgeology.us/prese ntation32.html
Debunking Evolution:
problems between the theory and reality;
the false science of evolution
These top creationist arguments present the truth about evolution. Top creationist arguments - every one.
.....blah blah blah flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.
I think its pretty clear by now that far from being the Almighty Tsar, you are merely the valet of the drunken Pretender.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95594
Jul 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

"Mutation - natural selection
Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature."

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95595
Jul 28, 2013
 
drinK tHE Hive wrote:
Euthanasia And Prostitution Should Be Legal And Located In The Same Building...
http://soshable.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/0...
If you're talking about brain dead politicians and special interest payoffs, we've already got the buildings up and running.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95596
Jul 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
http://www.newgeology.us/prese ntation32.html
"Mutation - natural selection
Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. That is physically impossible. To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.). We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years. The swinging hammer on the dog is as likely to build a house as mutation-natural selection is to make a single new working part in an animal, let alone a new creature."
So you have no original ideas of your own and the ideas you rip off and paste here aren't any good either.

Natural selection is not the only mechanism of evolution, it is the primary mechanism. Under selective pressure, a beneficial mutation that conveys an advantage is propagated. This advantage can be passed down to the descendants of the original bearer of the mutation. If the advantage has a significant impact on fitness and selective pressure is maintained the mutation becomes fixed in the population. Not random. Over time this process repeated for other genes can lead to new species with this new information in their gene pool.

To date no trait has been found to support irreducible complexity. All the examples offered have been debunked along with the concept. You are right that natural selection does not work in the way you indicate. Only those that don't understand claim it does.

I invite you to look into the research that is investigating the ice-fixing glycoprotein in notothenioid fish. The protein evolved from mutations in a digestive enzyme that have provided a selective advantage allowing these fish to live in the frigid waters of the Antarctic. Thus mutation in an existing gene leads to a new gene for a new protein with a completely different function.

If you want to abuse animals by tying things to their tales that is a crime and it is a horribly deficient analogy natural selection and more fittingly describes intelligent design and the people that support it. I would be interested in watching such an inept person like yourself tie anything to the "wagging" tail of a dog, especially a hammer. I think justice would be served forthwith in such a scenario either through frustration of failure or the sudden impression success would make. As long as the dog isn't harmed. It might even offer the bonus of your own decreased fitness.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95597
Jul 28, 2013
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>Arguing that microevolution happens but that macro doesn't is like arguing that someone can drive 1 mile but they can't drive 100 miles.

If you accept that they can travel, then the distance just requires multiple versions of the smaller travel.

Micro evolution is a change in a gene which is passed onto the next generation.

If that generation has another small change in a different gene and passes it along, then the 3rd generation has 2 changes different from the parent generation.

They keep adding up.
No it's like claiming you can swim but you can't swim to the moon.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95598
Jul 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

"Only mutations in the reproductive (germ) cells of an animal or plant would be passed on. Mutations in the eye or skin of an animal would not matter. Mutations in DNA happen fairly often, but most are repaired or destroyed by mechanisms in animals and plants. All known mutations in animal and plant germ cells are neutral, harmful, or fatal. But evolutionists are eternally optimistic. They believe that millions of beneficial mutations built every type of creature that ever existed.

Believing in beneficial mutations is like believing a short-circuit in the motherboard of your computer could improve its performance. To make any lasting change, a beneficial mutation would have to spread ("sweep") through a population and stay (become "fixed"). To evolutionists, this idea has been essential for so long that it is called a "classic sweep", "in which a new, strongly beneficial mutation increases in frequency to fixation in the population." Some evolutionist researchers went looking for classic sweeps in humans, and reported their findings in the journal Science. "To evaluate the importance of classic sweeps in shaping human diversity, we analyzed resequencing data for 179 human genomes from four populations". "In humans, the effects of sweeps are expected to persist for approximately 10,000 generations or about 250,000 years." Evolutionists had identified "more than 2000 genes as potential targets of positive selection in the human genome", and they expected that "diversity patterns in about 10% of the human genome have been affected by linkage to recent sweeps." So what did they find? "In contrast to expectation," their test detected nothing, but they could not quite bring themselves to say it. They said there was a "paucity of classic sweeps revealed by our findings". Sweeps "were too infrequent within the past 250,000 years to have had discernible effects on genomic diversity." "Classic sweeps were not a dominant mode of human adaptation over the past 250,000 years." --Hernandez, Ryan D., Joanna L. Kelley, Eyal Elyashiv, S. Cord Melton, Adam Auton, Gilean McVean, 1000 Genomes Project, Guy Sella, Molly Przeworski. 18 February 2011. Classic Selective Sweeps Were Rare in Recent Human Evolution. Science, Vol. 331, no. 6019, pp. 920-924."

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95599
Jul 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>And its also untrue.

The primary dating source for fossils is radiometric dating based on the layers of igneous rock that a sediment is sandwiched between.

The use of similar fossils as an index to date other rocks is a secondary method and not the actual source of the primary dating. However, thanks to the consistency of the fossil record, index dates have generally be found to be quite reliable. Don't take evilushinists' word for it. Oil and mineral geologists have a lot of money riding on getting their drilling right, and THEY use index fossils a lot as they have proven reliable. If the fossils indicate that a stratum is Carboniferous, then thats a bloody good indicator. Don't argue with scientists, ask the guys bank rolling billion dollar prospecting.

Junking the BS from your highly unreliable and poorly informed blog source is like shooting fish in a barrel. I suggest you find a better source. How about the actual science?
Real science? Or BS science like evolution?

"A 35-year experiment by evolutionists shows how things really work. Instead of waiting for natural selection, researchers forced selection on hundreds of generations of fruit flies. They used variation to breed fruit flies that develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal. But, as usual when breeding plants and animals, there was a down side. In this case the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation. There were many mutations, but none caught on, and the experiment ran into the limits of variation. They wrote that "forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations". "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles." "The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments." --Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590."

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95600
Jul 28, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
http://www.newgeology.us/prese ntation32.html
Debunking Evolution:
problems between the theory and reality;
the false science of evolution
These top creationist arguments present the truth about evolution. Top creationist arguments - every one.
"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.
Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.
Evolution, unlike selective breeding by people isn't looking to optimize any trait. If it were, we would have eyes on a par with the giant squid. This is a fallacy you all keep stepping into even when you are told over and over and over about it. What you are saying is that selective breeding taken to the extreme is limited. Aside from the fact that selective breeding is able to produce organisms with outrageous traits that couldn't survive naturally, I don't disagree with you. But that doesn't destroy it as an analogy of evolution. The weakness in the analogy just provides the opportunity for deceitful people to twist it to their own agenda.

Since even uneducated, willfully ignorant people can see variation, it is easy to understand why fundamentalists accept it. It is unfortunate that you stop looking after that.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95601
Jul 28, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
http://www.newgeology.us/prese ntation32.html
Debunking Evolution:
problems between the theory and reality;
the false science of evolution
These top creationist arguments present the truth about evolution. Top creationist arguments - every one.
"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.
Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.
Bacteria expressing new genes have been found. Ignoring them won't strengthen your case. Perhaps the optimized conditions in the lab aren't a selective pressure to drive speciation in fruit flies under such conditions. A homogenous environment isn't going to select for a trait that provides an advantage under nonexistent conditions. Of course as always you are really only talking about the traits that self apparent.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95602
Jul 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

"Evolutionists write: "The meaning, role in biology, and support in evidence of the universal 'Tree of Life'(TOL) are currently in dispute. Some evolutionists believe... that we can with available data and methods reconstruct this tree quite accurately, and that we have in fact done so, at least for the major groups of organisms. Other evolutionists... do not doubt that some... branching tree can in principle represent the history of all life. Still other evolutionists, ourselves included, question even this most fundamental belief, that there is a single true tree." "Darwin claimed that a unique inclusively hierarchical pattern of relationships between all organisms based on their similarities and differences was a fact of nature." Yet "the only data sets from which we might construct a universal hierarchy including prokaryotes, the sequences of genes, often disagree and can seldom be proven to agree. Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true." There is "the possibility that hierarchy is imposed by us rather than already being there in the data."12 "The finding that, on average, only 0.1% to 1% of each genome fits the metaphor of a tree of life overwhelmingly supports the... argument that a single bifurcating tree is an insufficient model to describe the microbial evolutionary process." "When chemists or physicists find that a given null hypothesis can account for only 1% of their data, they immediately start searching for a better hypothesis. Not so with microbial evolution, it seems, which is rather worrying. Could it be that many biologists have their heart set on finding a tree of life, regardless of what the data actually say?"10 "A single, uninterrupted TOL does not exist, although the evolution of large divisions of life for extended time intervals can be adequately described by trees." "Tree topology tends to differ for different genes."23 The genomes of all life forms are collections of genes with diverse evolutionary histories." "The TOL concept must be substantially revised or abandoned because a single tree topology or even congruent topologies of trees for several highly conserved genes cannot possibly represent the history of all or even the majority of the genes." "The 'strong' TOL hypothesis, namely, the existence of a 'species tree' for the entire history of cellular life, is falsified by the results of comparative genomics." "So the TOL becomes a network, or perhaps most appropriately, the Forest of Life that consists of trees, bushes, thickets..., and of course, numerous dead trunks and branches."21

Kevin Peterson, a molecular paleobiologist at Dartmouth College, "has been reshaping phylogenetic trees for the past few years, ever since he pioneered a technique that uses short molecules called microRNAs to work out evolutionary branchings. He has now sketched out a radically different diagram for mammals: one that aligns humans more closely with elephants than with rodents."

" 'I've looked at thousands of micro RNA's, and I can't find a single example that would support the traditional tree,' he says. The technique "just changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution'."

"And as he continues to look, he keeps uncovering problems, from the base of the animal tree all the way up to its crown."

"Peterson and his team are now going back to mammalian genomes to investigate why DNA and micro RNA's give such different evolutionary trajectories.'What we know at this stage is that we do have a very serious incongruence,' says Davide Pisani, a phylogeneticist at the National University of Ireland in Maynooth".--Dolgin, Elie. 28 June 2012. Rewriting Evolution. Nature, Vol.486, pp.460-462."

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95603
Jul 28, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Real science? Or BS science like evolution?
"A 35-year experiment by evolutionists shows how things really work. Instead of waiting for natural selection, researchers forced selection on hundreds of generations of fruit flies. They used variation to breed fruit flies that develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal. But, as usual when breeding plants and animals, there was a down side. In this case the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation. There were many mutations, but none caught on, and the experiment ran into the limits of variation. They wrote that "forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations". "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles." "The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments." --Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590."
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
Entomologist studying insect resistance are aware that resistant populations of insects show reduced fitness compared to the wild type populations, but you add insecticide and the wild type populations plummets.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95604
Jul 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I love the quote by Dr. Collin Patterson, past head of the zoology section of the British museum -

"It occurred to me that after studying this stuff for over 25 years there wasn't one thing I knew about it - that I could prove was true"

"I posted this question to a very prestigious group of evolutionists and and all I got was silence for a long time until one person spoke up and stated 'there's one thing I do know, it shouldn't be taught in High School'".

I personally contacted Dr. Patterson and asked him about this and he confirmed it. Being familiar with the animal life and lack of intermediates in Alaska, I asked him about this issue and he stated - "My friends in the tropics say the same thing".

The truth is there are and never have been any intermediates except in animations, drawings and typed words in the textbooks, because evolution never happened and cant happen. Cellular biology confirms this absolutely, as do attempts to replicate it in a thousand laboratories worldwide that have failed miserably. Its nothing but a belief system based on faith - a religion.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••