The Evolution Theory is a Myth Equivalent to the Flat Earth Theory

I think this is true, but I also think nobody here is getting what you are saying either, and there's little hope they ever will. I find it a little hard to follow you but I think you've done a pretty good job of being clear anyway and it's just my lack of familiarity with your reasoning processes that makes it hard for me, In fact I think you are making more sense than most creationists who come here and I'm impressed. But even if you got it said to absolute perfection they won't get it. I've only read a few paragraphs of your article, in which I suppose you mean to provide the knowledge so that the mythical nature of the ToE will become obvious, but I know from experience that nobody here will get it no matter how clear you manage to make it.You are quite right. There are indeed four processes that are called evolutionary processes in everything I've read, which implies that those four processes should be able to produce brand new features and functions if the ToE is true and if those are in fact the processes of evolution. I've also made use of the idea of those four processes in my own arguments but in a different way.Mutation, migration, natural selection and genetic drift are indeed offered as the Processes of Evolution. They do account for change, that is, as you put it: ,they do work, they do bring about change, but only within the range of possibilities already present, they cannot produce anything new, and producing something new is essential if evolutionary theory is true.I think you are quite right about the main point you are making but you'll never get anywhere convincing anyone here. You are right they aren't even getting the basic idea, it's all straw man misreadings. Just getting across the main outline of your point here is probably not going to happen.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He said something really very simple: that in a population or its gene pool that lacks the flying function, there is no way the molecular reconbinations can ever produce that function.And it is implied from what he has said previously, that there are four evolutionary processes that supposedly account for all the changes required by the ToE, but in the example he gives here of a population/gene pool that lacks a particular function there is no way those processes could produce that function.He says he wants to try to prove this through e coli experiments? At this rate he'll never be able to get to that part of his argument, he's just going to keep having to deal with all these straw man misreadings of what he's trying to say.

I didn't say he was going to DO experiments, he believes experiments that have already been done prove his point.But I may be getting him wrong so I hope he'll come back and explain.

I'm going to read his article but I haven't yet. My guess is that the people who did the experiments weren't looking for what he sees in them.

I don't think there is a conspiracy, I think there is a habit of thought that is reinforced from many angles. I do think you all could do better at trying to understand what this guy is trying to say instead of piling up the straw man misinterpretations, and that IS what you all are doing. He's the first creationist I've personally ever seen here who is arguing in a way I can follow and appreciate so I'd like to see him last a while. However, I also think there are plenty of creationists who have proved the ToE false.

A lot of it true too.

It doesn't really matter how much mutation there is. Mutation can only change the particular phenotype that is the product of the genetic sequence it alters.I don't know why forexhr thinks this experiment proves anything, I hope he will come back and explain, but his opening statements seemed clear enough that neither mutation, nor gene migration, nor natural selection nor genetic drift has the capacity to produce new features or function, which is essential if the ToE is true.Mutation is the only one of the four that could possibly produce change anyway, but it can't because it only changes whatever trait the genetic sequence governs that it alters. If you want to claim that something new can actually be produced you'd have to focus on major structural traits and forget about everything else, but even then it's not going to be possible to change those outside the parameters already dertermined by the range of possibilities governed by whatever sequence is affrected by the mutation.At least that's what I got out of his opening statement.

I suppose a definition of new function is needed but I think he made the point with his general statement anyway, anything new is impossible through the processes of evolution. All you can get is variations on whatever trait the gene governs.If it's a gene that governs fur color you can only get a fur color, maybe a "new" fur color though I'd guess it was an old one that had disappeared that the mutation revived, but only a fur color, you will not get a different fur type, only a fur color if that is what the gene produces, you will not get eye color, you will not get six toes, you will only get a varation in fur color. OR nothing at all. OR the mutation if it changes the sequence too much can even just make the gene unfunctional or dead.. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Can you show an actual new phenotype from any of your many identified genetic changes? I don't mean comparisons with chimps or other creatures, I mean actual phenotypic change that is actually NEW to the creature and not just a known variation of a known trait, brought about by an actual genetic change.If the mutation alters the sequence of a gene it could only produce a variation in whatever that gene governs; if the gene is for fur color the mutation will only produce a fur color and nothing else. Do you have any actual reason to dispute this?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I was just reading up on orphan genes. Formed from junk DNA I gather.; Vast majority are useless. Tiny proportion are said to produce novel phenotypes. Funny how it's always the most obscure elements that do such things as produce new phenotypes. Why not normal genes?That article also shows how much habitual speculation about evolutionary history goes on in trying to explain various genetic occurrences. Makes me wonder what you'd all come up with if you didn't allow yourselves all that speculation, just stick to the facts within the genome you are studying.

Have you bothered to follow what I said? Show me a phenotype produced by a mutation to a gene that is not normally what that gene does. If it is normally a gene for fur color, show me a mutation that makes something other than fur color out of that gene.

It's common knowledge, or so I thought, that a gene is a section of DNA that governs or determines the expression of a particular phenotypic trait, so that mutations to that gene can only change how that trait is expressed, it can't alter the trait itself -- meaning it can't produce a different trait. So a mutation of a gene for eye color can only affect eye color, no other trait. This shouldn't be controversial, or if it is I have no idea how. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes if you add enough complicating factors you can make it impossible for me to follow you, if that's your objective. I know mutations CAN produce change in the phenotype, but using the gene as a model, the change can occur only within the parameters established by the gene or section of DNA in which the mutation occurs. If this weren't the case genetic inheritance would be too chaotic to produce anything identifiable at all. Dear HBD, this is just a lot of abstract theorizing without a shred of actual evidence. What do you mean "can alter the temporal and spatial expression of gene products." Bring this down to earth please. You've got a trait that is governed by all this complexity. You say it can be altered by changes to this "regulatory network." You really need to give specific examples. WHAT trait, altered HOW?And one point I was planning to make to Dr. A is that even if something does change a trait, that can't be beneficial for the organism in the long run if what's happening is that a new trait is replacing a trait that was hard won by evolutionary processes over millions of years. What's going on is that a trait is being destroyed, a trait is not being added, only replacing something that presumably was functional in its own way and now no longer exists in that particular organism. And if it is a strongly selected trait, which antibiotic resistance certainly is, then whole populations will lack a trait in order that this resistance be produced. Nothing added. Please translate into ordinary understandable examples. If you won't speak simple English and explain things in recognizable physical terms: trait changes how? you know I'm just going to ignore you, I have no choice. You'll claim victory but all you've done is bury me under a mountain of jargon. I suspect you don't even know what you are talking about in actual practical terms, you've got yourself bamboozled. It certainly has to do with the actual functioning of the organism as opposed to the genetic stuff that makes it function.Sorry it looks like something got lost here. I'll see fri I can figure out what. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Antibiotic resistance seems to be produced by the destruction of some other trait or function in the organism. For that matter, any mutation that changes anything at all has to do it at the expense of whatever trait expression it replaces. This isn't necessarily a problem in single individuals, where of course the mutations occur, but if it spreads in the population it will replace that former trait or function for the whole population. Is that how you picture evolution working? I thought it had to work by adding something to the genetic picture, increasing genetic options rather than killing off some to get others.And besides, in the discussion of the immune system way back there on the forum somewhere, a couple of things became clear to me. That system is noted for its many alleles per gene, all of which affect only disease immunity in one way or another, demonstrating my point that the gene itself determines the product or trait or function of the organism and the mutation can only alter its expression within whatever limits it sets.Or whatever genetic substrate is involved --(since HBD is multiplying such factors to no clear purpose that I can see but at least it seems to add up to something more complicated than a gene, although even all that complexity no doubt functions in the same way: it determines the trait or function of the product so that a mutation can only alter the function or trait in ways limited by the existing structure, whether a gene or something more complicated.Anyway the other thing I noted was that the more alleles you have for a given gene, the more scatteredin the population is the effect of that gene. If it was a gene that protected against oh name something, it originally protected all individuals from that something, but having accumulated a bunch of mutations so that there are now many alleles scattered through the population, you are only going to get SOME individuals protectd from whatever disease is targeted by the mutation.None of this it seems to me serves the idea of evolution. Seems more destructive than positive for any organism. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I couldn't possibly anticipate all the ways my simple straightforward statements can be twisted here.