TOE and the Reasons for Doubt

Apart from the fact that you have been taken in by a clumsy obvious fraud, which has been thoroughly exposed, I should like you to spend half a minute thinking about what you just said.We know what dinosaurs look like without having actually seen them.Really. Spend fifteen seconds thinking about this fact.

Er ... what do you think that "evolutionists" have to refute?It's a rock. No "evolutionist" denies the existence of rocks.Please explain to us why you are having hysterics about this rock.

Since actual human footprints do not, in nature, have white lines around them, I presume that the "photograph" that you have shown us is something that you have faked.I should be interested to see the original photograph before you drew white lines on it shaped like a clumsy hand-drawn image of a shoe.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Haldane's dilemma is often discussed in terms of "deaths," but this is just a shorthand way of referring to "a number of deaths or their equivalents in lowered fertility" (p. 514, The Cost of Natural Selection by J. B. S. Haldane).In the end it all comes down to fertility. The outcome of competition is actually measured in terms of differential reproductive success. Naturally if an organism can out compete others of its species so as to actually cause their deaths then it has reduced their fertility to zero, but more commonly the outcome of competition expresses itself in terms of producing more offspring and contributing more copies of its genes to the next generation.With simple organisms such as bacteria, if in a population of bacteria there arose a mutation that allowed it to better compete for nutrients in the environment, then it would be able to reproduce more often. After some number of generations of dividing, say, every 20 minutes instead of every 30 minutes, the mutation would quickly come to dominate the population without actually having caused any deaths at all.With more complex organisms such as rabbits, a mutation that caused one to prefer a more nutritious food source might allow it to have larger litters, and over the course of some generations the mutation would probably come to dominate the population. Notice, again it causes no deaths in others of its species.Mutations that allow organisms to contribute more copies of their genes to the next generation are far, far more often the case than those that directly cause the deaths of other members of the same species. While one can easily imagine two alligators or lions fighting to the death over access to females, try imaging the same thing with earthworms, or better, turtles. "Come out, you coward!" One of the mistakes that Haldane made was assuming that it would take two mutations double the time to fixate as one, because he assumed that genes at different loci are independent. The relationship between genes at different loci turns out to be both varied and complex.In other words, you're accurately representing Haldane's conclusions, but Haldane's mistakes led him to wrong answers.--Percy

I don't trust you nor your 'evidence'. I don't trust anything that evolutionists say on such subjects because I have seen them lie so many times.

I have studied this enough to know that this was not a fraud. You are stilly naive and you are still lying to yourself.

Since you have studied this you can supply the inputs you used and the reasoning you used to come to your conclusions. You can also cover the various claims made by others that makes them think it is a fraud.You do not get to simply assert things. If this is all you can do then you demonstrate that you are unwilling to engage in honest debate.

i don't believe you've come back to answer the question i posted in message 304 Kaichos...."what do you think the ToE predicts if Africans moved out of Africa a million plus years ago with respect to the skin colour....and why? (hint, albino skin, vitamin D, darker climates).

Hi everyone...I visited the Natural History museum in London today...marvellous place. As I was wandering around I was wondering how many Creationists venture into places like this...to look at fossils by the score, stuffed animals, geographic distribution data etc...and a lovely statement by the museum (I don't know who it is attributable to) intimating that we have possibly only catalogued 10% of current Earth-living species let alone the vastness of past life-forms (I guess that Ark must have been even larger than we thought!!).Suggestion to creationists: Before you venture your doubts into public forum do yourselves a favour and PLEASE get out there and see first hand what you are arguing against. EVIDENCE is there for the taking...and you won't get that reading retarded creationist websites packed with lies - some of which Darwin himself destroyed!Nor will you get enlightenment kneeling in a church pew and avidly listening to the rants of know-nothings (AKA religious leaders, theologists, rapture evangelists).Try listening to the words of those guys who have sweated in the field, struggled with the difficult peer-reviewed literature and actually contributed to the subject....Really!

But you have not studied this enough to know that it is a fraud. This study would take you all of five minutes, and I urge you to undertake it. That would be a wonderful argument if personal attacks had any merit as arguments ... and if it was true.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

No, Haldane was well aware that mutations could be linked, but dismissed this scenario because of its extreme rarity. The problem is a mathematical one. Think of it this way:You have a population of organisms. There are two mutants, A and B. Their mutations are beneficial, so they proceed to spread them through the population.PHASE ONE: Non mutants being replaced by mutants A and B.Eventually the mutants "join up", so to speak, and you wind up with mutant AB. Now the process has to start all over again:PHASE TWO: Mutants A and B being replaced by mutant AB.Making the problem worse is "Clonal Interference", the idea that the beneficial mutations will compete with each other for dominance. For example, if mutation A is slightly stronger than mutation B, Then mutant A will replace not only non-mutants but also mutant B.

---

"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

One reason that your point is more obscure than you would wish it to be is that having said that "the problem is a mathematical one", you then do not, in fact, do any math.

But A and B are independent, so the process does not "start all over again." In sexual populations two (or more, many more) mutations can be selected independently.Look at it like this. For the sake of discussion, let's say if A had occurred alone that it would have taken a hundred generations for A to spread through a population, and the same for B. Since they're independent, if they had both occurred at the same time it would still have taken a hundred generations for both to spread through the population.You later mention the possibility of clonal interference, but that only applies to asexual populations. But let's consider what happens if our two mutations A and B are not independent. If they interfere with one another in some way, then their spread through the population will be slower. And if they reinforce one another in some way, then their spread through the population will be faster.--Percy

You mean like you just did?And when I do offer evidence, even outstanding historical evidence of natural phenomena, a la eclipses in conjuction with what was foretold and verified by historians...you treat it like rubbish.I don't care if you are an administrator you keep your opinions to yourself.

Raptorex:"Even the smallest schoolchild knows that Tyrannosaurus rex was king of the carnivores. It was giant, ate everything in its path, and ruled the earth for some 20 million years. But now scientists know that T. rex had a pocket-sized predecessor whose appearance is more cute than chilling. A report in the journal Science says that Raptorex kriegsteini existed 60 million years before T. rex with nearly identical physical features, but on a much smaller scale. Raptorex’s adult size was only about 8 feet long and 175 pounds. This discovery completely disrupts all former thinking about the evolution of tyrannosaurids. It was previously thought that their tiny upper limbs developed as a kind of evolutionary trade-off when their bodies grew to monster proportions. The Raptorex fossil proves that these features evolved millions of years before Tyrannosaurus rex evolved into the huge, terrifying predators that would be king until the final destruction of all of the dinosaurs." Puny Predator: T. Rex’s Diminutive 8-Foot-Long Ancestor | Gadgets, Science & Technology [thumb=400]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/raptorex.jpg[/thumb=400]The evolutionist position is wrong yet again and the history books will have to be re-written once more. What will they do when they find the remains of a human inside the belly of a T-Rex? I am certain that day is coming. [thumb=400]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h106/Martyrs5/raptorex-and-t-rex-skulls.jpg[/thumb=400]<!--AB--><span class="szs f-link"><i>Edited by Calypsis4, <script>if (getCookie('UseUserTimeZone')) {printDateTime(1255294169000, 'US', '-', 4, 'AMPM');} else {document.write('10/11/09 4:49 PM');}</script>: additions</i></span><!--AE-->