General Theory of Evolution

The theme of Defiant Heretic’s post is the oft-used illusion whereby if you can’t support your theory with evidence, make it true by redefining it! I have an article on the evolution definition shell-game here: 404 Not Found

quote:

---

I am going to attempt to state the general theory of evolution in its simplest terms.

---

Interpretation: I am going to perpetuate the illusion of evolution using the equivocation method of debate as described on page 1 of my evo-handbook.

quote:

---

1) Organisms differ from one another. (e.g. We are not all clones)
1a) Organisms change with each passing generation.
1b) Organisms that reproduce sexually receive traits from both parents.

---

Mendelism is an anti-evolutionary mechanism, and placed a solid barrier on upward evolution (FYI, Mendel was a creationist). It forced evolutionists to embrace random mutation (LOL!) as the root mechanism to create the new genetic information necessary to evolve new complexities. It put a nail in the coffin of Lamarckism, a mechanism that if true would have been favorable to upward evolution (I suppose that is why Darwin espoused Lamarckism, and why some evolutionists still cling to the Lamarck fairytale today).

quote:

---

2) Organisms pass on traits to their offspring.
2a) If an organism reproduces, its traits will be included in the next generation.
2b) If an organism does not reproduce, its traits will not be included in the next generation.
2c) An organism must be alive in order to reproduce.

---

Item 2b is incorrect, regardless of whether you are a creationist or evolutionist.

quote:

---

3) Organisms depend on certain resources in order to survive.
3a) There are a limited amount of resources available.
4) Certain organisms (e.g. carnivores) prey upon other organisms
4a) Carnivores are more likely to prey upon organisms that are easy to kill.
5) Because of (3) and (3a), organisms must compete for available resources.
5a) Organisms that successfully compete survive.

---

ROTFL! The classic mistake of defining selection as a tautology!

quote:

---

5b) Organisms that do not successfully compete die.
6) Because of (4) and (4a), organisms must compete (indirectly) to avoid being eaten by carnivores.
6a) Organisms that successfully compete survive.
6b) Organisms that do not successfully compete die.

---

ROTFL! (see previous ROTFL for the reason for my ROTFL)

quote:

---

7) Some traits are beneficial to an organism. (e.g. a chameleon's ability to camouflage)
7a) Some traits are detrimental to an organism. (e.g. blindness)
8) Organisms with beneficial traits are more likely to successfully compete as detailed in (5)and(6).
8a) Organisms with detrimental traits are less likely to successfully compete as detailed in (5)and(6).

---

Here DH engages in question begging (specifically item #7). He skips over an important problem— how did the chameleon get the ability to camouflage? DH assumes evolution is true and expects us to not catch this glaring omission. It’s all part of the illusion of the power of selection. Yet selection can only work with *pre-existing* traits! Where did this trait come from? This question is at the root of the C/E debate, yet DH tries to skip right over it, to the praise and adoration of his peers here on this board.

quote:

---

9) Because of (8), organisms with beneficial traits are more likely to survive long enough to reproduce.
9a) Because of (8a), organisms with detrimental traits are less likely to survive long enough to reproduce.

---

This is precisely natural selection (provided you add more before beneficial & detrimental). Please discard your previous tautological arguments.Natural selection primarily acts as a conservation mechanism. Those with diminished traits due to harmful mutation are weeded out to the benefit of the population (a protection mechanism to combat error catastrophe and eventual extinction). Here evolutionists and Creationists have always agreed and in fact Creationists espoused this view before Darwin [Edward Blyth, 1835].

quote:

---

10) Because of (9) and (2a), beneficial traits are more likely to be included in the next generation.
10a) Because of (9a) and (2b), detrimental traits are less likely to be included in the next generation.
Conclusion: Over time, beneficial traits are more likely to remain in the gene pool and detrimental traits are more likely to disappear from the gene pool.

---

And hence the illusion is complete - evolution must be true! For the truly nave, here is the root problem with DH’s claim: Where did the beneficial traits come from? That is what we are debating. This is the crux of the C/E debate. Creationists say that In the Beginning God created all life and all traits were initially beneficial, and over time certain traits have degraded or were lost. Evolution says In the Beginning Slime (or to appease the evolution isn’t abiogenesis crowd, In the Beginning a single cell) evolved through random mutation + selection to produce all the traits of all life on earth. Yet DH has already established the existence of what his theory seeks to prove, beneficial traits!!This is the current state of thinking in our schools, and it is quite sad. Logic gets thrown out the window for the sake of the sacred cow of evolution.

quote:

---

As organisms possessing certain beneficial traits breed with organisms possessing other beneficial traits, their offspring inherit the traits from both parents, and therefore possess more beneficial traits than either organism of the previous generation.
Organisms change in each successive generation, gaining beneficial traits and discarding detrimental ones, and therefore improving the overall survivability of the organism.

---

LOL! Here is yet another glaring error that your peers have failed to notice while they were busy patting you on the back for your story. Evolutionists like to say populations evolve, not individuals. If we accept here that evolution refers to micro-evolution (adaptation), then this statement is correct and can be used to show you the error of your ways. Say both parents each have 5 beneficial traits. That represents 10 beneficial traits in the population. After their offspring are produced, regardless of how many offspring they have, guess what? The offspring still only contribute 10 beneficial traits to the population!Perhaps you are claiming that each parent is contributing 10 *new* beneficial traits to their offspring. If so, please provide any evidence that new beneficial traits outpace new detrimental traits. Any evidence whatsoever. Please provide a documented example of a population whose gene pool was observed to have a net increase in beneficial traits over detrimental traits; that is, a decrease in genetic load.On the other hand, I can provide a ton of evidence that the opposite is true, that new detrimental traits are outpacing new beneficial traits in organisms. Ready to go to battle?

quote:

---

If you believe that the theory of evolution (by which I mean the general theory, the one stated above) is incorrect, please state exactly which of these points you consider inaccurate, and explain why. Be sure to post any references you cite.

---

The problem is, you did not properly state the usual evolutionist re-definition illusion correctly above. You could have kept the illusion simple, as most evolutionists do: evolution is allele frequency change over time. The capitulation and equivocation is complete!

quote:

---

Me: Mendelism is an anti-evolutionary mechanism It put a nail in the coffin of Lamarckism, a mechanism that if true would have been favorable to upward evolution

​

I fail to see how this is relevant. If I’m not mistaken, Mendel helped discover how dominant and recessive traits factor into genetics. And although some people may cling to the Lamarckian view, I do not, and even if I did, it would have nothing to do with this thread.

---

It’s quite relevant, and has everything to do with this thread. You are trying to defend the general theory of evolution, and have used the fact of Mendelism as part of your thesis. What you failed to realize is that Mendelism works *against* upward evolution, and shattered a powerful weapon of evolution accepted by many at the time of Darwin (including Darwin), Lamarckism. From Mendelism we learned that there is a 50% barrier for every new mutation that occurs in an organism. In other words, only half the offspring will get the mutation. Because of this enormous barrier in a sexual population, Fischer calculated the odds of a beneficial mutation with a high selective value only has a 1 in 50 chance of surviving (the odds are worse when more reasonable selective values are used). Lamarckism on the other hand does not incur this barrier, and new beneficial traits can become fixed in a population rapidly. Lamarckism would also completely alleviate Haldane’s Dilemma (a model that showed only one beneficial substitution could fix per 300 generations in a sexual population). Even if Haldane’s model is off, it still does not remove the fact that traits must go from few to many in a population, and the speed at which this can occur is governed by the organism’s reproductive capacity. This problem totally goes away if Lamarckism were true. But we know Lamarckism is false, and we know Mendelism is established fact. Too bad for the fairytale of upward evolution.

quote:

---

Yes, I do skip over that, because it’s not the issue here. I am merely arguing that evolution happens, not how it happens.

---

Yes, it is the issue, but you don’t want it to be the issue because I suspect you know there is no evidence for upward evolution, so you equivocate what evolution means. I have to be frank and say I find this intellectually dishonest, always have. I don’t think it is unwitting on either your part or the majority of other evolutionists who engage in this shell-game (not all evolutionists do this).

quote:

---

No matter where the traits came from in the first place, whether they are the result of random mutation, divine intervention, or something else, beneficial traits become more common and detrimental traits become less common. This post is mainly directed at anyone who believes that no evolution has occurred at all, including micro-evolution.

---

I don’t know of a single creation scientist who disputes micro-evolution. Regardless, your penultimate sentence is a vague assertion, and if you are implying beneficial traits outpace detrimental traits then you need to provide evidence to support this. This is what evolution is really all about.

quote:

---

DH: Conclusion: Over time, beneficial traits are more likely to remain in the gene pool and detrimental traits are more likely to disappear from the gene pool.

​

Me: And hence the illusion is complete - evolution must be true!

​

DH: Perhaps you could elaborate on which part of this is illusionary.

---

I did elaborate. In a nutshell, your illusion is that a lizard changing into a lizard means that a lixard can turn into a bird. You make the false extrapolation that if micro-evolution is true, then so is macro-evolution. I again refer you to my article that deals with your illusion: 404 Not Found

quote:

---

Please post the logic you are referring to.

---

See above. The relevant term used to describe your illogic is non-sequitur.

quote:

---

They may indeed be outpacing beneficial traits, however most likely they are not outlasting them. If your evidence suggests that they are, then by all means, feel free to post some of it.

---

Why certainly. For starters:http://www-bml.ucdavis.edu/imc/loadstatus.htmlSeveral studies have reported deviations from classical Mendelian segregation ratios in controlled crosses of bivalve molluscs (oysters, mussels, clams and scallops) These results imply that the Dabob Bay population of oysters has a large load of recessive deleterious alleles and that this genetic load is responsible for the distortion of Mendelian segregation ratios that was previously observed.Here we have a clear case where Mendelian segregation ratios (see Hardy-Weinberg law) are distorting due to heavy selection against harmful mutations. With such readily observable distortions at these loci it is clear the mutations are fixed or nearly fixed in the population. We would need an equal number of loci under positive selection (Hardy-Weingberg is also distorted when positive selection occurs on a beneficial mutation) to compensate and keep the genetic load in equilibrium. Where are they? I can provide many more examples. Where are your citations documenting a distortion in a direction favorable to upward evolution?

quote:

---

Percy: Just a quick note on a technical point. The TOE does not postulate anything like "upward evolution".
Pamboli: As Percy has rightly pointed out, there is no such postulate as "upward evolution" in the general theory of evolution.

---

Great! So you admit that your theory is now re-defined so that it fits nicely within a creationist framework? So you agree there is no evidence of upward evolution? In other words, do you agree that there is no evidence for the naturalistic development of new complex systems such as organs, sonar, feathers, etc?