TOE and the Reasons for Doubt

Darwin blamed an incomplete fossil record. Eldredge (above) categorically denies this. One of them is wrong.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

I can't believe you're going to try and defend this. 1667 mutations represents 0.00002% of the human genome. That's all you believe separates us from the common ancestor? Desperate stuff.Remember too that mutations are random. You don't get to choose the spectacular ones. They are what they are. Do you actually understand Haldane's Dilemma? It is a calculation of the time (in generations) required for a mutant to replace non-mutants in a given population. If the remaining members (non-mutants) of the population do not have a large decrease in fitness, therefore, it will take even longer. Just plain old wrong:"[for three mutants]...since the cost of selection is proportional to the negative logarithm of the initial frequency, the mean cost...would be the same as that of selection for the three mutants in series..." HALDANE

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

So give us this scientific evidence that evolution is not science.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Why not? Considering that most of our genome contains material that isn't used, why can't 1667 mutations separate us from the human/chimp ancestor? But his argument was that you needed 30 times the population size to substitute the new allele into the population. Haldane assumed a deteriorating environmental situation, meaning there was tremendous selection pressures. But the fact is the environment is often quite stable. Under a stable environment, then you only need to replace 1 times the population size. The mathematical proof can be found here. But I'm sure you won't look at it. Once again, if there arises two beneficial alleles in two members of a population, it doesn't take twice as long for the beneficial alleles to spread. It's mathematics. For each genetic death of an individual that does not contain either allele, the time it takes for both alleles to spread has decreased because one genetic death has paid the cost of two alleles. Basically, if you have a population of 100, the alleles will spread throughout the population. With a genetic death of an individual that does not contain either allele, you have decreased the population to 99 allowing the allele to spread faster. The more genetic deaths of individuals without the beneficial alleles, the faster they spread. Now add more alleles and the Cost of Benficial Selection is lowered even further.

No, you are wrong.Eldredge and Gould offered and explanation for why there is an incomplete record in many cases but not all of speciation. They were not talking about transitionals between higher taxa.You should avoid arguments fed to you by liars when you don't understand the actual biology.Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

In case you haven't noticed, I have given a couple hundred pieces of evidence in the last ten days. But it seems that skepics like you just arbitrarily brush aside anything that goes against your philosophical presuppositions as if none of it counts.

We've been trying to discuss your evidence with you, but most attempts are ignored as you move on to introduce yet another piece of evidence. You need stick with each piece of evidence long enough to explain how it supports your position.--Percy

No, Calypsis, you have posted some neat pictures and made some claims without refuting or backing them up. You have yet to provide a solid argument for ANYTHING you have posted.

Hi Calypsis4,I want to try to explain why you need to explain your picture evidence. Let's say you claimed there was a murder and showed us this picture: You wouldn't need to say much, we'd be pretty convinced there was a murder. But what if you instead showed us this picture: You'd need to explain how this picture proves there was a murder. What you've been doing, in effect, is showing us pictures of guns instead of murders, so you have to build a case that there was actually a murder. But instead of doing that you just show us more pictures of guns: So okay, you've got lots of pictures of guns. How do they add up to murder? You don't explain, you just show us more guns.--Percy

That's not a good analogy. Perhaps you've heard the phrase, 'a picture is worth a thousand words.'Let me show you the fallacy of what you said.Take the objects found in coal mines such as the human tooth encased in coal I posted a few days ago. Now how many options do we have that a human tooth will be found in carbinferous rock when 'evolution' tells us that humans did not live during the formation of coal? But it wasn't just the tooth. Through the years people have found hammers, gold chains, and all other kinds of objects that cannot be rationally explained by those who hold to an accidental world that happened all by itself.You argument is so shallow.

No, Calypsis, YOUR argument is shallow, because yet again, you fail to back up your statement. What human tooth? Where? Who found it? Who dated it? Was the find peer reviewed and published in a scientific journal?Why do I respond? You're just going to ignore this as you have every single one of my other inquiries.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Yes, through the years people have found in coal mines all kinds of objects one would normally associate with coal miners and other people. Where is your evidence that they're ancient human artifacts from the time of Noah, which I assume is when you believe coal layers were layed down.Evidence would take the form of things like radiocarbon dating of the tooth, analysis of the iron or steel in the hammer to see if its manufacture is consistent with the technology of American Indians or whoever were the ancient peoples where the hammer was found, and other evidence of this sort.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Provenance. Look the word up, Calypsis. A little info on provenance is worth forty-two pictures.Having taken Dwise1's advice to look up the definition of calypsis, I think you're a troll and an evilutionist mole. A damn good one, too. Kudos.Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.

Gday, It's not evidence against evolution at all.As you have been told dozens of times.But you just don't listen.K.

Wrong. Almost all of it is evidence against evolution. Some of it, like the living fossils of bats, rabitts, the tooth encased in coal (among many other objects that should not be found in cretacious rock) and the example of Laminin all suggest that the scriptures are truthful and the skeptics who say otherwise are dead wrong.It is their/your prejudices talking, nothing more.