Can Creationists Show Evolution Never Happened?

quote:

---

Larry: If you do understand it [what evolution thoery is], you are misrepresenting it.

---

No Larry, I am not. NeoDarwinism in a nut-shell is exactly as I stated. I can provide you page number if necessary in D. Futuyma's 'Evolutionary Biology' 1998 college textbook. He says the same thing. Is he misrepresenting the theory he is writing about? Of course not! However, I agree there are other details to the theory, some of which you listed. I gave you the "in a nut-shell" version, just as I had stated. You did not ask for a definition with all the details filled in. It appears you are very accustomed to shouting "misrepresentation! misrepresentation!" and were looking for any opportunity to do so. [QUOTE] fred: I posted some evidence that runs counter to your theory in another thread. Here again is the link:http://www.evcforum.net/Images/Smilies/smile.gif[/IMG] it shows that 40 offspring are needed just to keep the chimp/human population in genetic equilibrium!!! Dr Crow responded to my article, and he agreed it's a "serious problem".Larry: And I responded to it. Essentially you are making an argument that we don't fully understand the rates as they are found in one article. This isn't a falsification it is an appeal to the God of the Gaps. [/QUOTE]No Larry, I cited 3 studies in my article (there are more), not just one. They all keep popping up with similar numbers. Since then, another study has come out and they think the mutation rate should be higher yet: http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297Your other excuse is to blame it on the "complexity of mathematical models". If you get the papers for these studies, you will find that they are not complex mathematical models! In fact, they don't use much math at all! The formula I used to determine reproductive cost is a simple Poisson distribution that you learn about in Statistics 101 (the paper I linked to above uses the same method).This is powerful evidence against common descent. It uses real, hard numbers. The only assumptions built in are that they used DNA samples that are fairly representative of the entire genome. Statistics shows they used more than enough genes to satisfy this. This compounded by the fact that multiple studies are arriving at roughly the same numbers.Your "evidence" of shared errors is predicated on the assumption that the shared pseudogene is NON-FUNCTIONAL. Do you agree that if we discover a function for the pseudogene, it shoots your evidence down to the ground?Which "evidence" is more reliable? The one built entirely on a tenuous assumption, or the one where the assumption has been sufficiently addressed?PS. I'm still waiting for any citation indicating a beneficial rate of 1 in 100 mutations. You are orders of magnitude off. Heck, it's hard enough to find even one, and when they do its highly suspect.

​

[This message has been edited by Fred Williams, 12-20-2001]

It may be possible to show that evolution never happened but it is likely if this test occurs it will only come on the heels of some significant advance in evolutionary theory where finally the language base of discussing evolution thinking gives way to technical consideration of paramaters. During this test the meaning of location in population genetics will acquire some solid connections and laws of growth May be shown to extend beyond Huxley's view of allometry and the temporal assymetries demanded by some more modern adherents. I have various suggested otherwhere that virials and/or perversions are the concepts to develop this artifical selection of history into a rotation for observation in Dobshansky's sense of Meso evolution as I do not expect an out and out solution by problems that generally do not in the imagination (generally) cross micro and macro scales.

[QUOTE]Please name a single, unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations.
[/B][/QUOTE]First, I want to make clear that evolution DOES NOT CLAIM that new species are formed by random mutation ALONE, so your requiring it as evidence is irrelevant.However, if you want evidence of speciation at all, here you go: http://www.wsu.edu/NIS/Universe/Evo.html"Three species of goatsbeard are known to have been introduced to the area by European settlers around the turn of the century. These non-native species have hybridized and produced two new polyploid species.
Small populations of the new species were firs observed in the 1950s by Marion Ownbey, director of the herbarium at WSU, who studied polyploidy and the goatsbeards before the Soltises."

If message 33 is in reference to 32 the content is precisely backward. I in no way imply that mutations must be the turning point of discussion and I certainly do not prematurely or in any way yet talk about species selection. The niche and many probably wrong concepts in ecology come first after proper evolution thinking flow sustains. The variance may already be available or obtainable but not organized. If /B does not apply to me then skip this message.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
If I wrote a word that no one had written before it would be new, by definition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

It’s not new information unless it has meaning. Don’t let Shannon statistical information fool you into thinking that meaning is not required for it to be information. If you give it meaning, it is not information to me unless you tell me what it means.

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the sender changes, or something happens during sending, the code is changed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Huh? The code can never change unless there is prior agreement between sender & receiver. I think you are confusing code with message. Some examples of a code are Morse, Basic, C, English language, Chinese language, DNA.

​

---

"In 1970, several cases of where RNA sequences are used to specify DNA nucleotide sequences." (Moore & Slusher 1970 p114)Arguing from inside your argument, wouldn't they both be sender & receiver at the same time?Since you obviously reject this, what constitutes a receiver in genetics?------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Since you obviously reject this, what constitutes a receiver in genetics?

---

Good question. The ribosome, for one.

Wasn't the ribosome a product of the DNA itself?------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

You will notice that at the bottom of each message, there is a line that reads "This message is a reply to message # XXX from Joe Schmoe.That is how you know who is replying to whom.

Thanks, my eyes are just beginning to become accustomed to the darker style on this board. Sorry for any confusion.

Alright, lets get back to the topic.Firstly, as I will say again for you evolutionist that decide to turn a blind eye on my last post. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not the same thing, that is only a fools way of thinking. No matter how many micro-evolution changes take place it will NEVER EVER equal a macro-evolution change. Micro-evolution is the reshuffling of existing DNA information within each kind (notice I said kind, not species, new species do come about but they are always true to there kind and only degenerative versions of the last species going against the trend of evolution). Macro-evolution is the deriving of new DNA information, NOT THE RESHUFFLING (e.g. reptile just all of a sudden learns new DNA information to grow feathers). They are totally different, WAKE UP, evolution has never occured, will never occur and as far as I'm concerned anyone believing in it hasn't got there head screwed on right. It doesn't work, it is impossible. There is no proof of evolution so stop believing in your fairy tale.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Retro Crono:
[b]Alright, lets get back to the topic.

​

Firstly, as I will say again for you evolutionist that decide to turn a blind eye on my last post. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are not the same thing, that is only a fools way of thinking. No matter how many micro-evolution changes take place it will NEVER EVER equal a macro-evolution change.[/QUOTE]

​

First of all, "NEVER EVER" is not scientific language.

​

Second, what mechanism prevents many small changes accumulating to large change?

​

The mechanism must be very well understood if you are so VERY, VERY sure that it can NEVER, EVER happen.

​

Please explain it, in detail.

​

quote:

---

Micro-evolution is the reshuffling of existing DNA information within each kind (notice I said kind, not species, new species do come about but they are always true to there kind and only degenerative versions of the last species going against the trend of evolution).

---

​

Please provide a precise, unambiguous definition of "kind". (I have yet to get this from any creationist, in over 3 years of asking)

​

quote:

---

Macro-evolution is the deriving of new DNA information, NOT THE RESHUFFLING (e.g. reptile just all of a sudden learns new DNA information to grow feathers).

---

​

The ToE doesn't claim that "reptile just all of a sudden learns new DNA information to grow feathers", so this is a meaningless argument.

​

quote:

---

They are totally different, WAKE UP, evolution has never occured, will never occur and as far as I'm concerned anyone believing in it hasn't got there head screwed on right.

---

​

Riiiiight. Gosh, you sure do sound like you are a scientist, with all of that "black and white" language.

​

quote:

---

It doesn't work, it is impossible.

---

​

Speciation has been observed.

​

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

​

[QUOTE]There is no proof of evolution so stop believing in your fairy tale.[/b]

---

Oh, yes, on the basis of your overwhelming evidence, I will stop accepting the evidence for common descent. Mmmmm.....ahhh. There, done it.LOL!BTW, You don't think that the "logical" alternative to science and Biology is Fundamentalist Christanity, do you?Now that I have traveled back in time 300 years intellectually and scientifically, I can also stop thinking that E=MC^2 ever existed. Space travel? Forget it. I can believe that there are canals on Mars, too.Here's another good one; fossils are rocks that spontaneously take on biological forms.If I get sick, all I have to do is get some leeches, and I will feel a lot better.It's so great!

quote:

---

First of all, "NEVER EVER" is not scientific language.

---

And being an atheist is?

quote:

---

Second, what mechanism prevents many small changes accumulating to large change?

---

OK, take a deck of 52 cards, shuffle them for as long as you want. What do you find? 52 cards, just rearanged differently, which is micro-evolution. No matter how many times you shuffle them cards you won't end up with 53 cards, or different types of cards all together. Micro-evolution is just the reshuffling of existing information, macro-evolution consists of learning new, better DNA information that wasn't there before.

quote:

---

Please provide a precise, unambiguous definition of "kind". (I have yet to get this from any creationist, in over 3 years of asking)

---

Sigh, can you not think for yourself? What do you think a kind would be? A dog is a kind, a cat is a kind, a horse is a kind. Scientifically, within some kinds you need to seperate species even though they are pretty much the same thing. All these evolving of new species are still the same species, or kinds we now have to refer them as, simply because they can no longer breed within the same genus they have to be seperated as a different species. However, the evolving of new species goes against the ToE since they are just more degenerative replicas of the last species and are still true to there kind (not all types of dogs can breed with one another you know) having learnt no new better DNA information than what they had prior. Just more unordered following the creation model that all things were once perfect and since than they are getting more unorderly.

quote:

---

The ToE doesn't claim that "reptile just all of a sudden learns new DNA information to grow feathers", so this is a meaningless argument.

---

Huh, what do you mean it doesn't claim? The bird supposedly evolved from the reptile. The reptile doesn't have feathers so it would have just had to learn new intelligent DNA information from some non-existant source to supposedly survive when it was obviously surviving fine up until that point. That is a macro-evolution change, it didn't have that DNA informatin before, but now it does.

quote:

---

Speciation has been observed.

---

Since when did I ingnore that? It nicely follows the creation model though, all these new species aren't new better kinds than before so how is that suppost to support evolution, it goes against it. Some species do adapt better to there environment, using existing DNA information. But doesn't that support creation? Showing how well made life is, not just some no purpose chemically bound molecules.

quote:

---

BTW, You don't think that the "logical" alternative to science and Biology is Fundamentalist Christanity, do you?

---

No I don't. I don't even mind if evolution was taught for its gullable believers. Just don't pass it off as fact and for anyone who brings up contradictory evidence not to ridicule them. This is science, if people didn't prove things the way they really are then we'd still be living on a flat earth so to speak. I also wouldn't mind the killing off of the media hype making out it has found facts for evolution when it is normally just a pigs tooth or something. It confuses the hell out of the uninformed and they go off living in a fairy tale thinking we came from monkeys. I also wouldn't mind being able to watch documentaries without them saying evolution is fact, evolution is fact, look at all the evidence we have, even though they don't have any they tell you they do. It's just brainwashing and I'm sick of it.

​

[This message has been edited by RetroCrono, 12-23-2001]

Evolutionists always get hung up on microbes and hemoglobin and Galapogos finches and neurons and minutia like that. No one denies micro-evolution. However, macro-evolution is pure horse manure, and completely impossible to defend in light of the scientific method.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekimklaw:
Evolutionists always get hung up on microbes and hemoglobin and Galapogos finches and neurons and minutia like that. No one denies micro-evolution. However, macro-evolution is pure horse manure, and completely impossible to defend in light of the scientific method.

---

Explain why. Given you accept the adoption of mutation in a species due to ns, What is the limiting factor?------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Mutations, ummm....how should I put this. Are very harmful to the DNA code, disordering the already existing information. Therefore, mutations are even more limiting than no mutations since mutations make the DNA code worse, not better. A heap of mutations won't just make a monkeys mind expand into a humans mind, perhaps rather limit it instead.