Can you disprove this secular argument against evolution?

Why do you say that evolution is a secular argument?

It is irrelevant how a car works. Car is just a name for a human mental construct. What is relevant is to refute my claim that resources are insufficient to extract functional engineering structures from clusters of particles.And yet it was done.Perhaps there's something you're missing?

You've just explained why you're wrong. Well done.Evolution is not searching for a target. Nor would it know one if it was. It is indeed blind, but it isn't searching.

Utter crap and the reason why everybody is telling you you're wrong. Evolution is not a thinking process, it does not search or have a target. Evolution doesn't have to do anything. The most likely event in a change of environment is death. You're making a basic error in thinking a particular outcome could be expected. Repeating it doesn't make it any less crappy. There is no target, there is only a random change in a gene that may or may not help an organism in a particular situation. You are committing the sharp-shooter fallacy by looking in hindsight at an outcome and trying to calculate the odds of it happening. That fact is, it didn't have to happen at all or not in that way.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

You're looking at a whale and saying that the odds it being that way are infinitessimal. This is wrong-headed. It's the equivalent of looking at all the cards in a deck dealt one after another and saying that the chances of that being that way are infinissimal. The cards didn't need to fall that way - we'd still be looking at a deck of cards no matter what order they were dealt. The whale did not have to look like it does today for evolution to have happened. As Percy says, the haystack is stuffed full of needles.And of course your biggest problem is that we know that as far as evolution overall in concerned p=1, because we have vast quantities of evidence that demonstrates it beyond reasonable doubt. We know empirically that you are wrong.You're trying to prove statistically that the earth is flat whilst we're all here looking at a round ball from space. Good luck with that.

Well I do have to admit it was only my first degree that was in Zoology..... Correct. Also correct And this is where you go wrong.You've just looked at the outcome of a particular organism produced by evolution and claimed it's probability is x, an outrageous number. Just like you would look at the dealt deck and claim its probability as impossible. However, we both know the probability is 1. Because we're looking at them.Unlike cards, there are not only and always 52; as far as evolution is concerned there are an infinite number of cards and any outcome at all except death will do.As you have no idea how many survival outcomes there are, you can not predict their probabilities.

And you're a dickhead. Should we stop with the insults do you think or do you really need them in lieu of an argument? Wahey, he's getting it! I'm holding my breath.... ....oh dear, blown it again.

What a pile of illogical, unreasonable and unreasoned nonsense.Ignoring all the rest of that garbage, The evironment is a 3D shape has to be one of the most bizarrely bonkers statements posted on these boards.Why don't you waste you time trying to show that the mutation of the peppered moth isn't a 3D shape that can happen instead of all this pseudo-mathematical bullshit with no empirical or even theoretical grounding?You know, look at a real example of a real mutation causing a real beneficial change in a real organism which made it a better fit to its environment.We're all looking at a flying bee here, it's hard to tell us that it can't fly.

Right, despite being the poster child for old fashioned Darwinian evolution? Descent with medication with environmental change creating the selection pressure for survival of the fittest.Nothing in that might fit a definition of evolution? Did you ever read any evolution theory? You're out of date sir. The colour change was caused by a mutation. It was not gene plasticity.

quote:

---

Discovering the mutational events that fuel adaptation to environmental change remains an important challenge for evolutionary biology. The classroom example of a visible evolutionary response is industrial melanism in the peppered moth (Biston betularia): the replacement, during the Industrial Revolution, of the common pale typica form by a previously unknown black (carbonaria) form, driven by the interaction between bird predation and coal pollution1. The carbonaria locus has been coarsely localized to a 200-kilobase region, but the specific identity and nature of the sequence difference controlling the carbonaria—typica polymorphism, and the gene it influences, are unknown2. Here we show that the mutation event giving rise to industrial melanism in Britain was the insertion of a large, tandemly repeated, transposable element into the first intron of the gene cortex. Statistical inference based on the distribution of recombined carbonaria haplotypes indicates that this transposition event occurred around 1819, consistent with the historical record. We have begun to dissect the mode of action of the carbonaria transposable element by showing that it increases the abundance of a cortex transcript, the protein product of which plays an important role in cell-cycle regulation, during early wing disc development. Our findings fill a substantial knowledge gap in the iconic example of microevolutionary change, adding a further layer of insight into the mechanism of adaptation in response to natural selection. The discovery that the mutation itself is a transposable element will stimulate further debate about the importance of ‘jumping genes’ as a source of major phenotypic novelty.

---

The industrial melanism mutation in British peppered moths is a transposable element | Nature

Now you're really grasping at straws - that paper deals with e.coli bacteria not a sexually reproducing macro-organism.You will also note that the moth's mutation placed a transposon in a place not associated with pigmentation - a properly random event.Until you come up with your paper on pre-programmed randomness in Biston betularia, it remains what it is - a random mutation leading to evolutionary change.(The concept of non-random randomness is quite cute though. It implies a genetic function evolved to create change and enhance an organisms ability to evolve.)

quote:

---

Once there was a final shortlist of 87 DNA differences between the black and pale lab moths, he and his colleagues tested whether each variation, one by one, was present in the wider variety of white moths found in the wild.
"After a long time we eventually managed to get down to a single one, which then had to be the causal mutation. To our surprise, it also turned out to be a rather unusual type of mutation."
The carbonaria mutation was in fact a "jumping" piece of DNA, called a transposon, which had inserted itself into a gene called cortex.
These odd sequences more often have a damaging effect when they disrupt an existing gene. But for one embryonic moth in the early 19th Century, when these extra 9,000 bases landed in its cortex gene, they were in fact the secret to success.
Exactly how the mutation causes black colouring remains a mystery; cortex is not a gene with any known role in pigmentation.

---

It was an attempt to get you to deal with real world evolution and away from your fantasy numbers.

So now you're behaving like a typical disingenuous creationist cherry picker. The paper actually tells you that.....

quote:

---

....it may not be practical to extrapolate very much from an asexually reproducing species such as E. coli to organisms that reproduce sexually.

​

And Stumpf warns that because bacteria live in such large populations, their evolution in aggregate may be more predictable than that of larger, more dispersed species.

---

It was a mutation in the cortex that changed the colour of the moth period. It's just too bad that you find it incovenient. And the mutation was random and affected the evolution of the moth. Weird huh?

I love this creationist trope. It's repeated by The loonytunes Davidjay and the sadly deluded Faith, here daily. Despite your ideas being debunked and proven wanting by everyone here from every level of argument from logic to molecular genetics using the very papers you site. You declare victory.It's both amusing and sad.