Bolder-dash's very own little thread

This is great, now I can discuss why I disagree with how I must present my own arguments.First, it is not, contrary to every evolutionists begging of the point, the obligation of a critic to propose his own complete theory, in order to disagree with a present theory. That is a red herring, that I have seen way too often.I can find issue with your own theory being inadequate on its own merit. If your theory is adequate, it is the obligation of the one's promoting the theory to prove its worthiness. This is indeed a standard method of scientific critique.Secondly, I have stated again and again some of the great flaws of your theory, namely that demonstrating the mechanisms by which evolution occurs over long periods of time, particularly in regards to creating new and unique body plans, is something that evolutionists are not able to do. Now of course, virtually every evolutionist on this site will pull out the same BS card of simply saying its all in a magic book, and well if you knew anything about biology (bullshit, I know about biology) without citing that proof, so the argument then becomes virtually impossible to get to the heart of. They claim this is a valid argument, simply because they can repeat it again and again ad nauseum (just wait they will do it here again!, I predict Dr.A to be the first).I will add much more critiques soon.I love this thread already-because I can't be accused of being off topic here, now can I?

NO, no, sorry, on this thread you don't get to decide my argument for me.In this thread, I am proposing the questions, not you. And my first question is what empirical evidence can any evolutionist give that support the theory of how the mechanisms work that cause long term evolutionary change. How big is your body of empirical evidence? Does the body of evidence extend beyond the bounds of a few simple changes in bacteria?

Ok, I was wrong about one thing, Dr.A was not the first to pull out the "read a book" technique of argumentative fallacy (I am sure there is a name for this pedantic school of rhetorical discourse, but it slips me right now).Perhaps its called the "evolutionists last resort" style of debating?The BS flag is going to go straight up the next time someone tries to use it though, I can promise you that.But crashfrog, since you are in school, and hoping to make a career out of biology, I implore you to at least first understand the difference between seeing an evolutionary change (such as a fossil) and understanding all of the mechanisms that actually caused those progressions of changes, and being able to account for them. So far you seem to be struggling with that differentiation.This requires more than just blind faith, that a random mutation can seamlessly provide all of the variation necessary, and in the correct order to produce the changes your theory claims it does.In other words, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

I appreciate your moderate tone, so allow me to expand on one point.If we take the theory on its face value, that in its simplest form, we are saying that point mutations (ok and gene transfer, and genetic drift, etc, I got it) lead to minute changes in species. These changes may cause some small, yet statistically significant fitness advantage in an organism, such that this advantage will soon begin to outnumber other individuals within a population who do not have this particular advantage.So the first important thing to note about this aspect is that the mutation can't be too small, or it is unlikely to provide a significant enough advantage, and yet the mutation can't be too large (simply because your theory says that these changes are small-unless your theory is now re-inventing itself to exclude the small steps provision).So the obvious point is that if this is the standard method by which all functioning body plans came to be, then these types of slightly beneficial mutations must be quite abundant throughout species populations, because we have so many millions of very detailed body plans to account for, so we are going to need trillions of these advantageous mutations. And if these advantageous mutations are significant enough to give one individual an advantage over others, then they should be detectable.And yet, in our vast world of animal kingdoms, we have so much trouble pointing out some of these starting points for new emerging body parts, which could be advantageous and lead to a newer complex system of bodily functioning.Now let me just add one final point here before I go on. I am aware that there are those who are nw arguing that it doesn't quite work this way, that instead many of the potentials for these new systems are already in place in our genetic codes, but that they don't reveal themselves until there is enough selection pressure to be revealed, but this is a secondary argument, that also has a lot of explaining to do, first of which is how did the potential get there to begin with.Secondly, if one is going to now use this argument for your ToE you then have to acknowledge that all this time when you were arguing that it was point mutations and the like, causing these beneficial mutations, you were completely wrong, and thus much proffer some apologies.

Well, all of those examples you just stated, such as the Sickle Cell gene, and the peppered moths, and Darwin's finches are really evidence AGAINST your theory, not for it. For example, in the Sickle Cell gene, the individual affected by the disease is less fit, than those without the defect-even though it causes a resistance to malaria. They have not inherited better functioning body systems, they have inherited worse functioning systems, even it is does resist them to one particular disease. The only reason they are resistant to the disease is because the shape of their blood hemoglobin is so bad, that it become sticky and inflexible. This is not a good condition for human functioning, and would never ever lead to an improved body plan by anyone's reckoning.Furthermore, with the peppered moths, they did not create any new kind of species, nor any new functioning whatsoever. In fact, as soon as the soot went away, the darker colored moths returned (and there are more problems with the evidence here, that I won't go into).Likewise, with Darwin's finches, the populations continue to oscillate back and forth between longer beaked finches, and shorter ones, with no overall effect to the species at all.So, I would say when we look at things closer, the evidence gets more and more sparse. if not altogether non-existent.

Now, in regards to your Italian Wall lizards. How long were these species transplanted to the new environment before they started developing all of these changes? I am guessing it wasn't a very long time. Certainly nowhere near as long as the thousands or hundreds of thousands of years that your side claims is necessary for these small incremental changes to take hold in a population.In other words, one way to disprove Darwin's theory is if the changes DO NOT occur through slow, random mutations, but through a much quicker route, somehow already inherent within the animal. These animals have already changed FOUR different things in a minuscule amount of time. Which of the four things do you think natural selection was selecting for first? How long did it take for a completely random mutation to occur to give them a cecal valve? Does that sound like the definition of random mutations and natural selection to you? Clearly these were not new traits to the species, that never existed before. To show that, all you would have to do is show how often do these types of mutations occur in populations where there is NO need for them.You better think about that one.

You are missing the point. The point is to show how any of these mutations (they weren't even mutations in the finches and the moths) could develop a new body plan. The fact is they couldn't. Sickle Cell anemia certainly can't do that.Are you suggesting that Sickle Cell anemia is one of the best examples your side has to prove the effectiveness of your theory to produce new, unique and fitter body plans? That's a big problem for your theory if that is the case.

To give you an analogy about the Sickle Cell anemia; suppose that in one village, there were a group of individuals who got some crippling disease which didn't allow them to work. As such, they could never go outside, and were bed ridden. Now one day all the other villagers were out hunting, and got attacked by a large group of hunting heynas. The hyenas killed every villager who went outside, but the "fortunate" cripples with the diseased legs all survived because they couldn't go outside.Did natural selection just select a new body plan, one for cripples?This is what happens to sickle cell victims.

I hope you don't assume that I just thought of this yesterday, and that I don't really understand the premise behind your theory.So let's do imagine we are in that pre-Cambrian era and noticed some creatures with light sensitive patches some where on their body. We might remark, well, that sure is odd, you don't see that very often, and even more fascinating, it really seems to help those creatures navigate better than those without that little patch.And then if we waited another very long time (or as Dr. A wants to suggest we only have to wait less than 40 years, we would see those same creatures now, all with the light patches, and even more fortunately some of them have gotten a little depression in their bodies, EXACTLY where that little light patch happens to be, and amazingly enough that little depression (I mean little depression in animals bodies happen mutationallly all the time I guess right) ALSO happens to provide a small little concave surface which helps focus the light every so slightly more, such that now those with the depression are even better at navigating than those without the depression. Mutations are much more fortunate now in this scenario than we first thought. But don't worry, there will be more of these fortunate little depressions. And then after than a cornea will pop up. And some time after that, rods will pop up, and then cones, and then a retinal nerve, and then of course an iris and then a pupil..or will it be a pupil first, and then an iris?But of course we are just getting started, because two of them will certainly be better than one. And if they are perfectly symmetrical, so much the better. I wish we could also get a tear duct. Whoa, viola! You got it. Would you like an eyelid? great. It will help if that eyelid is extremely rapid, so rapid that it can move at the speed of a blink. And you know what, its not just one form of liquid we get to luck into our tear ducts, its two!! Bonus time.We could of course go on and on with these fortunate beneficial mutations which are so rare, but let's return to the present for now. Where are these light sensitive patches that pop up now and again like they used to during the pre-Cambrian? Or how about microwave sensitive patches. I could sure use a night sensitive patch on my forearm, for those times when I get up in the middle of the night and trip on my slippers. That would be an advantage.How about these random mutations for new tear ducts? Corneas anyone? Because supposedly they just pop up spontaneously every once in a while in some mutants, but we just never noticed-at least they did in the pre-Cambrian-oh, how times have changed. I sure do miss those days of spontaneous rods and cones. Especially if they happen to happen in a place I could really use them. I mean, I get spontaneous rods all the time, but not always in the backs of my eye.But heck, if a lizard can change FOUR fundamental parts of its body in 40 years, if I just lived to be 60, and have a few kids, and they have kids, who knows, they might just end up with 6 retinas instead of two, plus that night patch we so desperately could use.Ah, its a dream. Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

BTW, why was Faith banned before? Because no one could come forward and support her arguments?Ok, since this is my thread, I come forward. I will support her. Does that mean she can return now?

Yes, I would be willing to do that if she wants to come back.

I shall.By the way, other than Joran Van Der Sloot, I really like Dutch people.

Well, I live in China, but I am not Chinese. But many of my friends are.

No, I am not ignorant of the fact that you can also have non-beneficial mutations occurring regularly during the time frame that these generations are supposedly getting the good mutations as well. But how does that strengthen the case of evolution any?I still need to get a mutation for a tear duct,, and I need to it be somewhere near my eye, and I need it to be more beneficial than it is detrimental (if that is even possible before I have teardrops) even if we are getting mutations for a club foot, or for baldness, or for a cornea that is attached to the tip of a tail and serves no purpose whatsoever.

That's great, so show me where we observe corneas popping up in organisms spontaneously? How about cone photo receptors appearing on the palms of people's hands?You must have access to some studies I have not seen.