PROOF against evolution

?

see you are still here - people only pretend to leave they always want the last word.You can't help yourself.

Ooooh... that's the problem.... ok.

yes - see, you are demogogfranlistaic.

The original point I was making was that mutations add information to the genome. The subsidiary point was that mutations can accumulate to cause substantial change. Many Creationists reject the possibility that complex organs like the eye could have arisen by this process, but it's merely the same process we observe taking place in all cell reproduction projected onto a long timeframe. But evolution postulates that change happens in tiny increments, and not all at once in the way you describe here. It is not the scientific view of eye evolution that one day a blind organism spawned a sighted offspring. It is instead postulated that there was a progression from light sensitive skin areas to eye spots to multiple eye spots grouped together to form primitive eyes to covered eyes to concave covered eyes to lensed eyes, each providing a greater survival advantage than what went before. I'm no expert on hypotheses of eye evolution, I'm just trying to give a flavor. But that's exactly what it does. Mutations are reproductive accidents. Natural selection filters out the unfavorable ones and keeps the favorable ones. The favorable ones then propagate throughout the population and join the gene pool. Evolutionary theory holds that all change is gradual. All the requirements for surviving on air did not need to be available all at once, because the transition from fish to amphibian to land animal was very gradual. One hypothesis for the emergence from the sea is that it occurred in very shallow pools that tended to evaporate, and hence the ability to be able to extract at least some oxygen from the air provided a survival advantage. There are other hypotheses, of course. There may be one involving lung fish, for example.--Percy

How? How can they accumulate? How were evolved wings? How mutations accumulated? Where is your "the fittest survive"? Not complete wings are not an advantage -> they are fatal disadvantage, Percy. Eyes = 2 small balls...how simple is that, isn't it? Really strange how somebody can believe in such nonsense.
Eyes couldn't evolve from a light sensitive cell on the skin. They have to be connected to brain. There is no light sensitive cell on the brain. If there is no brain, no eyes can be evolved. If there is not already existing ("evolved") mechanism to receive and "decode" electric signals created by vision in a brain, no eyes can be created once again... If there are no eyes, no such mechanism can be evolved, that's clear. And this is called a proof that evolution is not possible.
Well, you have to read something about eyes. Here you can find everything (including description of every kind of eye)
eyech6-c.html
Eg. scheme of insect eyes:
http://www.eyedesignbook.com/ch6/fig6-18BG.jpg (a result of mutations?) How? How can you use "natural selection filter" when talking about evolution of wings, lungs, heart, bones, eyes etc? All of these can't be created by accumulations of mutations... that's nonsense. Othewise please describe how is it possible? Evolutionary hypothesis constist of "it occurred", "it happened", "it appeared" etc... but how? That's the question. If there is no evidence, there must by at least theoretical possibility for that process. Don't you think so?

what a liar you are! What has it been? 2,3 days?

Are you OK, Charles? I don't know what are you talking about. Still confusingly spinning around?

ah don't worry about it - I've come to conclusion it would be a waste of time trying to argue it out with you.

Bird and bat wings are just adaptations from front forelimbs. Their wings have all the same major bones and basic structure as forelimbs. To suggest an example, gradual changes could add some gliding capability, like the flying squirrel with the extra skin between it's forelegs and body. If gliding provides a survival advantage, then flying squirrels with allele combinations or mutations that make gliding easier or more effective will survive to spread their genes throughout the population.As I think I've already said a couple times, it isn't likely that we'll ever precisely decipher the evolutionary path for things like flight and eyes. While evolution *does* leave clues, there isn't really much of a paper trail. All we can do is take the clues we have and attempt to project backwards using the mechanisms known today, namely natural selection, mutation and allele recombination. If we're talking about a creature with a brain, then the skin is already connected to the brain by nerve cells. Any mutation causing some skin cells to be more light sensitive would send signals to the brain when light strikes them. The light would probably be interpreted by the brain as heat or touch contact, depending upon which nerve cells connected to the skin respond, but natural selection would favor those individuals whose brain made the most of the information, and the interpretation of the light signals would improve in the population over time.--Percy

quote:

---

Eyes = 2 small balls...how simple is that, isn't it? Really strange how somebody can believe in such nonsense.

---

Eyes do not equal 2 small balls. Take planarians for example: Those two small brown dots on the upper left are eyespots. They are not eyeballs, but patches of photosensitive cells arranged inside of a depression, much like a human retina without the rest of the eye. Planarians are able to sense light and the direction the light is coming from which allows them to respond to light stimulus. They do all of this WITHOUT A BRAIN. Therefore, your statement is absolutely false.

You have replies.--Percy

Percy:Hi, sorry, I don't have much time lately for discussions, so my answer is late, of course...so quickly: Both of us now why you haven't mentioned insect wings, for example. Did it just appear? Or were there some stages when extra skin was developing. Of course there couldn't be any otherwise it would be fatal disadvantage.
And both of us know why you haven't mentioned how bird wings work, why you haven't mention its feathering. So... if extra skin and so these kind of "wings" were not "developed" at once, "partly-mutated" animal would naturally die... that's clear. This is an evident fantasy I won't comment as you've completely forgotten (ignored?) about a mechanism in brain needed to "decode" signals created by vision I was talking about.Loudmouth: These are very very simple "eyes"... yes, there is retina, no lens, no cornea. (these "eyes" are also mentioned in a website I have already mentioned before) No. They do all of this WITH A BRAIN. Therefore, your statement is absolutely false.If you like I can find for you "hundreds" of websites to show you a proof but I don't think you will ask me to do it.

Sure. They haven't been mentioned because the development stages are so well known and understandable that there is simply no question of the evolution. It's one of the prime proofs of evolution.Often we fail to mention those issues that are so basic we assume every child knows about them.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The intention was not to prod you into a premature and hurried response. Please take all the time you need if this is a busy period for you. I'll reset the stage in this message. Despite Jar's classification of this as basic, I'm afraid I'm not able to recall anything about insect wing evolution. Perhaps someone can provide some details about current thinking in this area. I don't believe "extra skin" is provided for by DNA. Midgets are not wallowing in extra skin, and children provided growth hormone to become taller do not find their skin stretched taut. During an organism's developmental period up to adulthood, skin apparently grows to accomodate any growth. I didn't mention just birds, I mentioned both birds and bats, and feathers aren't a shared characteristic of birds and bats. Feathers evolved from scales. Some orders of dinosaurs were feathered, and it is thought that birds evolved from them.There's one point that you don't seem to be picking up on that is very important, so I'll repeat it again in this message. Evolution doen't leave much evidence behind. We can only take the clues we have in the form of fossils and genetic data and using the processes we're familiar with project backward in time what might have occurred. Nailing it down in any definitive way in most cases probably won't be possible. It would be like seeing a bird in a tree and trying to deduce what route it took to get there, and what were the previous 5 branches it had rested on. Clearly there's a definitive answer, but there's probably no evidence available to find that answer. Evolutionary pathways provide the same paucity of evidence. But I didn't ignore it. You even quoted it. More briefly this time, I said the mutated skin cells are already connected to the brain by nerve cells, and that the brain would evolve to interpret the signals properly. Creatures possessing brain characteristics best able to interpret the signals would have the best chance of contributing to the next generation. I did not ignore your question, and if you don't like this answer you'll have to tell me why.You next responded to Loudmouth: Loudmouth was responding to this from your previous message, which was your response to me when I described how eyes might have evolved initially from skin cells: So Loudmouth provided the example of planarium, which has two little eyespots that are not "small balls". The planarian does have a brain, primitive though it is and more a ganglia center than a brain, so I'm not sure what he meant when he said it does it without a brain. But we find examples in the animal kingdom of many stages of evolutionary eye development, and so our surmises are fairly well informed.--Percy