Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9021 total)
47 online now:
AZPaul3 (1 member, 46 visitors)
Newest Member: Ashles
Post Volume: Total: 882,630 Year: 276/14,102 Month: 276/294 Week: 32/136 Day: 32/27 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How is Natural selection a mechanism?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 9 of 191 (522750)
09-04-2009 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by AndrewPD
09-03-2009 7:02 PM


Aren't mutating genes the sole mechanism by which organisms are formed?

Try to attain precision of thought.

The sole mechanism by which we can observe organisms being formed is in fact the reproduction of other organisms. "Mutating genes" are possible in this process but not actually necessary.

If you think I am being overly pedantic, you are wrong. Scientific thought requires precision. If someone maintains that E = mc3, they're not nearly right, they've blown the whole thing.

What is it that you wished to say? If you will try to put what you wanted to say in precise terms, you may find that you can see the answer to your own question.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by AndrewPD, posted 09-03-2009 7:02 PM AndrewPD has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 10 of 191 (522751)
09-04-2009 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by AndrewPD
09-04-2009 7:01 AM


But I don't see how something could be selcted for if it wasn't already present due to a mutation?

It can't be.

You seem to be exhibiting a typical confusion which I see often in discussions of evolution. It's as though someone were to say: "Cars can't work. How can the steering wheel be a mechanism that directs the car from place to place when it provides no motive power to the car!"

This analogy is rather a good one. Mutations are the engine, natural selection provides the steering.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by AndrewPD, posted 09-04-2009 7:01 AM AndrewPD has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 13 of 191 (525328)
09-22-2009 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Kevin123
09-22-2009 11:13 PM


Re: Mutating genes
I need all you smart evolutionists to explain something to me.

Sure.

Coyote claims that mutations can be harmful or beneficial. I believe evolutionists have been trying for decades to produce beneficial mutations in fruit flies.

You believe wrongly.

I was not aware they had ever succeeded in creating a mutation that stuck through more than a few generations.

What a bizarre statement. Germ-line mutations are by definition heritable, they can't just melt away like the dew in the morning. The only thing that can get rid of a germ-line mutation is another germ-line mutation.

Has a beneficial and permanent mutation ever been observed naturally or in labs by the evolutionary biologists attempting to make it happen?

Yes, of course. Though "observe it happen" would be more accurate than "make it happen". Obviously when one is studying evolution one does not induce the mutations!

Assuming that beneficial hereditary mutations do occur, even when evolutionists use that in an argument they say it happens very rarely. What I usually hear that given enough time even rare mutations add up to form new organs and animal species. However, that argument doesn’t make sense. If beneficial mutations are rare millions of gradual mutations would be exponentially less likely.

You have failed to show your working. As a mathematician, I can assure you that you are wrong, but unless you show your working I can't point out your specific error.

A more likely scenario might be a mutation causing a monkey suddenly giving birth to a human.

No, that is fantastically unlikely, but again, unless you show your working, I can't point out your specific error.

According to evolutionists the first mammal appeared only hundreds of millions of years ago. Since then we are supposed to believe that small incremental mutations resulted in the thousands of mammals that exist today. That would require millions of mutations for each new organ and millions of bone structure variations for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of intermediary species (and that these millions of intermediary species somehow disappeared from the fossil record).

So if we figure a mammal breeds on average once a year that only allows 200 - 300 million generations for all those consecutive mutations to occur and propagate. You also have to allow many generations for the mutation to become the dominant trait through natural selection.

Natural selection or genetic drift, since not all of the mutations tolerated by natural selection are necessarily adaptive.

We can, of course, measure the rate of mutation, and show that it is just what is required to fit the time-frame derived from geology, thus confirming the correctness of evolution.

If a beneficial mutation occurs say once every million times an animal reproduces (despite evidence to the contrary) ...

Which evidence would that be?

... then the likelihood of just ten consecutive mutations occurring would be 1 in 10^60, fifty consecutive beneficial mutations would occur 1 in 10^300. Even allowing 300 million generations that is still odds of 3 x 10^6 in 10^300, and that is only 50 beneficial mutations not the millions that would be needed.

But your calculation of odds applies to your fantasy of "a monkey suddenly giving birth to a human", not to consecutive mutations being fixed by selection or drift.

If you argue that the changes occur faster than that then we should have many changes in humans in the last few thousand years or at the very least a new organ or two. Seems to me that a little math and common sense shows how ridiculously impossible evolution is, but I look forward to somebody pointing out my error.

Your error? Too little math and too little common sense.

Has it ever occurred to you that geneticists know at least as much math as you, have at least as much common sense, and know a darn sight more about genetics? That would be a fact for you to think over.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Kevin123, posted 09-22-2009 11:13 PM Kevin123 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-10-2009 11:06 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 20 of 191 (525515)
09-23-2009 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Kevin123
09-23-2009 4:09 PM


Re: Mutating genes
First, I should have mentioned that my problem with evolution is limited to macro evolution. Micro evolution (small changes WITHIN species) ...

If that is your definition of micro-evolution, then perhaps I should point out that most creationists have now admitted that speciation takes place.

Indeed, the creationist apologist group "Answers In Genesis", with remarkable chutzpah, write:

New species have been observed to form. In fact, rapid speciation is an important part of the creation model.

Presumably the point at which it became "an important part of the creationist model" was when they found themselves utterly unable to go on denying it.

I also don’t think that observed natural selection is evidence of macro evolution since natural selection eliminates information but does not add new information.

That was a bizarre non sequitur.

So how did macro evolution become anything more than an interesting hypothesis?

Because it explains paleontology, morphology, embryology, biogeography, et cetera. Or, in the words of Theodosius Dobshansky: "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".

What evidence (observation)points to an animal developing a new organ or growing a new limb and then passing it on to future generations?

Er ... that would be a saltation by somatic mutation. Evolution is about the gradual accumulation of germ-line mutations.

You are at a level of understanding where you don't need us to answer your questions, you need a high-school biology text book.

A few of you mentioned that I was incorrect in my assumption that one permanent beneficial mutation in a million pairings was being generous. I simply base this on the fact that we have observed trillions of pairings among animals and humans in the last thousand years and not once has a single beneficial and lasting mutation in a human or animal been observed

This is not true.

Considering the trillions of variations that would have been necessary in only 600 million years to create every insect and animal type, bone structure, organ, land plant type, et al, visible hereditary changes should occur every day. And not just small errors in the genetic code that tend to correct themselves.

Once more, you have failed to show your working, so although I know you are wrong, I cannot point out the point at which you have made your mistake.

I know some evolutionists pushed on this issue point to punctuated equilibrium or punctuated evolution as a possible explanation. I understand that this is somewhat controversial even among evolutionists and wonder if there is any evidence for rapid periods of evolution followed by long periods of equilibrium ...

Well, there's the fossil record, and there's the fact that this is what we'd expect to see if the theory of evolution was true.

As for "controversial", Darwin described is as "probable" 150 years ago. Today, I don't think anyone would object.

I imagine it must be frustrating to time and time again find the same type of dinosaur, fish, bird or plant fossils here and there but not be able to find an equal number of (or even a few) fossils for the billions of intermediary species.

What an odd fantasy world you seem to inhabit.

However, the things that you like to "imagine" are not relevant to this thread.

Anyway, if there is some obvious evidence for macro evolution that I’m missing I’d appreciate someone pointing me in the right direction.

See above.

BTW is anybody else curious why physicists are much more open to the possibility that Einstein made mistakes than evolutionists are about Darwin?

I am not in the least interested in the causes of imaginary things that you made up in your head.

Didn’t Darwin believe that cells were mere blobs of protoplasm?

No, of course not.

Yet his proposed theory maintains an almost religious following with anybody who even questions them being attacked as a biblical creationist zealot.

You'll find a similar thing happens in connection with the theory that the Earth is not flat.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Kevin123, posted 09-23-2009 4:09 PM Kevin123 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Kevin123, posted 09-23-2009 4:53 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 24 of 191 (525537)
09-23-2009 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Kevin123
09-23-2009 4:53 PM


Re: Mutating genes
Not very helpful. Maybe more of us "heretics" would accept the evolution faith if you took the time to explain the evidence and not simply declare that evolution is the only possible explanation for ....

Unfortunately, I cannot, in fact, take the time to write several books. I have something else to do this afternoon.

However, books do exist on these subjects.

I notice that I forgot to mention genetics. Read a book on genetics first.

Historically anytime a theory was accepted because it was the only explanation for x, it was proven wrong.

This is, of course, untrue.

On the other hand theories based on observable and measurable phenomenon tend to last a little longer.

Like evolution, then. 150 years and still going strong.

Again, thanks for being so helpful. Tell me, what animal has a mutation in its genetic code that is being passed down and propagated through natural selection?

Assuming that by "genetic code" you mean "genome" ... all of them.

I'm just waiting for the next paradigm shift ...

Keep waiting.

that gets us past the "random acts lead to extreme complexity" theory

You really have no idea how evolution works, do you?

that violates the natural relationship we observe between order and chaos.

If evolution violated any "natural relationships" I'm sure that scientists would have noticed by now. They know quite a lot about nature, and they're quite smart.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Kevin123, posted 09-23-2009 4:53 PM Kevin123 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 28 of 191 (525552)
09-23-2009 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Kevin123
09-23-2009 5:42 PM


Re: Mutating genes
The diversity that can be achieved through selective breeding is truly amazing. However, it still is not evidence for evolution from one species to another.

No, the evidence that that happens is that that does in fact happen, as creationists admit.

Really? How many evolutionary steps did it take for dinosaurs to become birds? Surely there must have been more intermediary steps between them than there are species of dinosaurs. How is it possible to find multiple fossils of the same dinosaur or the same extinct bird without finding the missing links ...

That would not be possible. That is why paleontologists have found many intermediate forms.

That means that the millions of species that exist today and many billions of intermediary species evolved from a simple multi cellular organism in less than 600 million years. This is an incredibly short period of time ...

Once again, you have failed to show your working.

If you wish to base your argument on numbers, then at some point you're going to have to do some actual math.

No, I would expect what evolutionists tell me I should expect. I expect small changes that led from a T. Rex to a bird.

That is not what evolutionists tell you to expect, since T. rex is not ancestral to birds.

I someone say once that the fossil record fossil record does not point towards an evolutionary “tree” with a common trunk. It is more like an evolutionary lawn, with thousands of blades of grass each with their own leaves branching off.

And you believed him? How amusing.

But what some guy said to you is not evidence.

Even Richard Dawkins (evolutions modern day poster boy) talks about the possibility of aliens seeding the planet. If evolutionists concede that an outside force or intelligence seems to be responsible for the origin of life on this planet ...

But no evolutionist, least of all Dawkins, has conceded that. Admitting the possibility is not the same as saying that it seems to be the case. I admit the possibility that you're an alien from Sirius B. In which case, welcome to Earth. But that is a far cry from saying that you seem to be an alien from Sirius B. It might explain your ignorance of terrestrial biology, but I can think of more parsimonious explanations.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Kevin123, posted 09-23-2009 5:42 PM Kevin123 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Kevin123, posted 09-23-2009 6:38 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 33 of 191 (525571)
09-23-2009 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Kevin123
09-23-2009 6:38 PM


Re: Mutating genes
To do the math I would need to know how many mutations (or at least have an idea of how many different species) occured between multicelled organism and man. That is impossible ...

So, you claim that the numbers support you and you disclaim the ability to do the math?

Fascinating.

... because the common ancestors on your evolution tree is where the line is blurred between art and science. If you had any real evidence for this "trunk" on your "tree" then we could possibly calculate it. However, we have no way of even beginning this calculation because there are no fossils for these common ancestors or for any intermediary species with partially developed organs or bones.

You should really study the fossil record some day, it's most interesting.

Primates date back about 85 million years so that leaves ~500 million years from simple organism to primate. Again it only took 5-6 times as long for the evolution from primate to man as from multi celled organism to primate? As an evolutionist I'm sure you know of the miniscule difference in DNA between monkeys and man.

I know that there are ten times more base pairs different between even chimps and humans than there are base pairs in total in a typical prokaryote. Also, because I have done the math, I know that this difference is accounted for perfectly by measured mutation rates.

What's your point? Does this somehow relate to the math you admit you are unable to do?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Kevin123, posted 09-23-2009 6:38 PM Kevin123 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Kevin123, posted 10-10-2009 2:35 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 44 of 191 (529862)
10-10-2009 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Kevin123
10-10-2009 7:44 PM


Re: Mutating genes
20 years of experiments and e. coli changed its diet, wow! And considering the 40,000 generations that would be equivalent to how many millions of years of human evolution. So you get from a banana eating ape to an ape that eats apples and bananas over a million years. Forgive me if I am not as excited about it as you are.

I have never claimed that species can't adapt, but that is hardly proof of macro evolution.

You didn't ask for evidence of "macroevolution" You asked, and I quote, for an example of "a beneficial permanent mutation that's resulted in new genetic information".

You have been given one. If you were a different sort of person from the sort of person that you very plainly are, you would have said thank you, instead of whining that it isn't what you didn't ask for.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Kevin123, posted 10-10-2009 7:44 PM Kevin123 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Kevin123, posted 10-10-2009 9:32 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 46 of 191 (529870)
10-10-2009 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Kevin123
10-10-2009 2:35 PM


Re: Mutating genes
Show me to that math or point me to it.

Certainly.

By the way, did your mother never teach you the "magic word"?

I know you can't actually have done the math ...

And how wrong you were.

because the there has never been a mutation observed (in nature, or in a lab) that has not corrected itself.

Your fantasy of mutations "correcting themselves" is a new one on me. I thought I'd heard every creationist error about genetics, but it seems there's always something new to learn.

Anyhoo, my point is that this is something you've made up. Basing your arguments on stuff you've made up is not going to get you very far.

Also nobody has answered my question about why evolution has slowed down in the last few thousand years.

Did you ask that? How amusing.

It hasn't.

In fact the complexity of cells and the lack of a good explanation for the evolution of complex cellular structures and the origin of living cells is what finally convinced me that evolution at the very least has some pretty big gaps and is not worthy of being considered a theory. And the explanations given for how these celluar structures "may" have originated are never based on observation and cannot be duplicated in a laboratory ...

Another odd fantasy.

In the Middle Ages, when the Earth-centric theory of the world began to show disagreement with the growing observational data in astronomy, adherents of the paradigm busily invented a seemingly endless series of cycles and epicycles (circles within circles) to account for the movement of heavenly objects around the Earth, tweaks that allowed them to continue to justify the old paradigm. The same thing happened and continues to happen in biology. The Darwinists' response to any possible observational discrepancy is to propose a suitable modification of Darwinian ideas - shades of cycles and epicycles. Darwinism is so general that it can be reinterpreted to incorporate any data that contradicts it. It is not falsifiable.

You do say a lot of stuff that isn't true, don't you?

Anyway, the purpose of this thread is for you guys to be wrong about genetics (preferably natural selection) not the origin of life or the scientific method. But feel free to start another thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Kevin123, posted 10-10-2009 2:35 PM Kevin123 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Kevin123, posted 10-10-2009 9:56 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 47 of 191 (529873)
10-10-2009 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Kevin123
10-10-2009 9:32 PM


Re: Mutating genes
wow, no need to resort to personal attacks. In the context of the discussion it should have been obvious that I am looking for proof of macro evolution

But that is not what you asked for.

If you are looking for evidence of macroevolution, why did you explicitly ask to see something which is not evidence of macroevolution?

And his example is not proof that new genetic information was added. As i pointed out the mechanisms to metabolize citrate are already there.

And the capacity to metabolize citrate under aerobic conditions was not. Therefore, this is something new. Because it wasn't there and now it is. New. See?

Maybe you should read more than the last post before you start attacking someone.

The fact that I haven't yet answered every error you've made in this thread doesn't mean that I haven't read them all.

The problem is you people always resort to the same three things every time: this bacteria learnt to eat that, became resistant to that, sickle cell this....

And if you think that macro evolution is a result of small mutations then the example he provided is your proof. Or do you have better proof for how a new organ or limb could be developed?

This is a strange collection of words. I can make little of them.

If not then you need to reconcile the mutations observed with the time allowed by your evolutionary timeline.

Which, as I pointed out, fit perfectly together.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Kevin123, posted 10-10-2009 9:32 PM Kevin123 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 49 of 191 (529878)
10-10-2009 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Kevin123
10-10-2009 9:56 PM


Re: Mutating genes
That wiki paragraph is you mathematical proof? That is hilarious because if you have read it, it is simply using the dates of the fossil record to calculate how many changes the time frame would allow. If that is proof then you are using a reverse scientific method.

This just shows the funny science you evolutionists use to try to justify your theory as new evidence comes to light. You take your theory and make the data fit it. If anything that same wiki helps me prove my point.

Now read it again until you understand it. You might want to look at the section on "misconceptions" at the bottom of the page.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Kevin123, posted 10-10-2009 9:56 PM Kevin123 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 53 of 191 (529895)
10-11-2009 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Kaichos Man
10-10-2009 11:06 PM


Re: Mutating genes
Kevin, I can tell you from hard experience that such figures might trouble a scientist, but they will never discourage an atheist.

But such figures do not trouble scientists. Mainly because scientists are mathematically literate.

This is why you can't quote any scientist talking such nonsense about genetics, but instead are quoting some random guy on the internet whose errors about genetics are so far removed from reality as to be delusional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-10-2009 11:06 PM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 54 of 191 (529896)
10-11-2009 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Kaichos Man
10-11-2009 12:01 AM


Re: Biblical creationist zealots
Oh, how you wish that was true.

But you can hear the footsteps, can't you, Coyote?

More and more scientists, with better and better qualifications, questioning the theory. More and more people breathing on your fragile little house of cards. More and more hitherto sacred absurdities being exposed by mathematics and observed data. More and more intricacies of DNA being uncovered by the year, consigning your theory firmly into a place of academic fantasy.

To the point where an American President would consider it appropriate to promote the principle of ID.

Listen to those footsteps, Coyote. Because as they become louder and more insistent they will drown out your athiest dogma and herald an exciting new dawn for true science.

What an interesting fantasy world you live in.

The most amusing thing about this fantasy is that it has, literally, been passed down from generation to generation. Creationists have always been pretending that any day now they will achieve victory. Ex-creationist Glen Morton has called it the longest running falsehood in creationism.

Yeah ... any day now. Tomorrow, or Tuesday at the latest, you guys will come up with a good argument, and then everyone will see that you're right. Or maybe Wednesday ...

Nice daydream. Let me introduce you to reality:

Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

--- Albanian Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina; Australian Academy of Science; Austrian Academy of Sciences; Bangladesh Academy of Sciences; The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium; Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina; Brazilian Academy of Sciences; Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; The Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada; Academia Chilena de Ciencias; Chinese Academy of Sciences; Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan; Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences; Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences; Cuban Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic; Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters; Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt; Académie des Sciences, France; Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities; The Academy of Athens, Greece; Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Indian National Science Academy; Indonesian Academy of Sciences; Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran; Royal Irish Academy; Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan; Kenya National Academy of Sciences; National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic; Latvian Academy of Sciences; Lithuanian Academy of Sciences; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academia Mexicana de Ciencias; Mongolian Academy of Sciences; Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco; The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences; Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Nigerian Academy of Sciences; Pakistan Academy of Sciences; Palestine Academy for Science and Technology; Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru; National Academy of Science and Technology, The Philippines; Polish Academy of Sciences; Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal; Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Singapore National Academy of Sciences; Slovak Academy of Sciences; Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts; Academy of Science of South Africa; Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain; National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies; Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan; Turkish Academy of Sciences; The Uganda National Academy of Sciences; The Royal Society, UK; US National Academy of Sciences; Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences; Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela; Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences; The Caribbean Academy of Sciences; African Academy of Sciences; The Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS); The Executive Board of the International Council for Science (ICSU).

Those are actual scientists, not the imaginary scientists who live in your head.

Now, this thread is actually a chance for you to be wrong about natural selection. Would you like to do that, or would you prefer to share your wet dreams with us?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Kaichos Man, posted 10-11-2009 12:01 AM Kaichos Man has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 191 (529906)
10-11-2009 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Kevin123
10-10-2009 9:56 PM


Re: Mutating genes
That wiki paragraph is you mathematical proof? That is hilarious because if you have read it it is simply using the dates of the fossil record to calculate how many changes the time frame would allow. If that is proof then you are using a reverse scientific method.

This just shows the funny science you evolutionists use to try to justify your theory as new evidence comes to light. You take your theory and make the data fit it. If anything that same wiki helps me prove my point.

I think I see what you're trying to be wrong about. I'm not sure, because, let's face it, you're not going to win the Mr Coherent 2009 award.

But you seem to be complaining that I have proved the following fact:

Time (as given by study of the fossil record) × the rate of evolution = the quantity of evolution

Whereas this, you seem to be saying, is "using a reverse scientific method", because I should have proved the following fact:

The quantity of evolution / the rate of evolution = time (as given by the study of the fossil record)

But these are logically identical statements. It doesn't matter which way I demonstrate the math, it's the same equation, rearranged.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Kevin123, posted 10-10-2009 9:56 PM Kevin123 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021