Can Creationists Show Evolution Never Happened?

I wish to turn a question on its head & pass it back to anti-evolutionists/creationists.Evolution is the mechanism by which a species changes as random mutation is offered up to non-random natural selection.There are two factors that have to be true for evolution to be happen.Natural Selection; This phenomenon has been observed & documented. E.g Anti-Biotic resistant bacteria. DDT resistant Insects, & Galapagos Finches. In all three cases I give, measurable change are evident in decades, not millions of years.Mutation; This is also observed & quantifiable.The organic bases, Guamine, Thymine, Cytosine, & Adenine are grouped together in pairs (A & T, G & C) in DNA. Three pairs of bases forms a codon. There are 90,000,000 codons in 40,000 genes in a single strand of human DNA. In humans the rate of mutation is about 1 mutation every 1,000,000 codons. So in every cell division that takes place in our bodies there are on average, 90 mutations. In haploid cells, (sperm & egg) that contain only half the genetic information, 45 mutations will occur. This amounts to every human having 90 mutations in the first cell of their development (45 in the sperm, plus 45 in the egg). That is to say, there is information coded in every individuals DNA that has nothing to do with the information of their parents DNA.To save myself from repeating myself, I give an account of how natural selection & mutation work together to allow evolution, in the "What is the evolutionairy theory on the Giraffe?" thread. So please take a look to get a better picture of what I’m on about.So, within the framework of the information given, that evolution relies on only two factors, mutation & natural selection, both of which are known. Could any anti-evolutionist explain how evolution doesn’t happen?------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[B]Creationist agree that adaptation occurs. Adaptation is evidence of a "good design." [QUOTE] What is the mechanism of this "adaption" [QUOTE] Mutations do not proove evolution. Mutations are never "good" or helpful to an organism. The plant or animal that is mutated is always worse off than he was before. [QUOTE] How do you know this? A mutation that improved the oxygen affinity of haemaglobin would be positive, a few codons reversed/removed/added could do this, its only a molecule. There is no reason a given mutation can't be positive. [QUOTE] Besides, even when mutations do occur, they only scramble the genetic information that is already there. Mutations do not and can not add information [QUOTE] Mutations do effectively scramble existing genetic information. But this IS new information. It is interpreted into different proteins that may have NEVER existed before, just by switching a few codons around.To say it isn't new is like saying the new testament doesn't contain new information because its just the same letters arranged differently.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[b] The animal looses the same amount of information that it gains. And like I said, the gains are never good.[/QUOTE]Information loss is irrelevent. New information is there. Also there are mutations that cause replication of lengths of DNA, so genetic material CAN be added, & subsequently mutated, giving more, new information. [QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[b] quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

What is the mechanism of this "adaption"

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

I suppose it would be the ability to handle changes in the enviroment without becoming extinct. However, these traits are already present in the animal before the enviromental condition which causes them to appear occurs. There also reaches a point where no further change can occur. I believe this is apparent because the enviroment changes very dramatically sometimes, yet animals die out, and we witness no new species.

​

.[/QUOTE]Yes, but the mechanism?Also, new species are being described all the time. [QUOTE]Originally posted by redstang281:
[b] Do you know of an example of an animal with a good mutation?
[/QUOTE]Yes."Today bacteria are an important tool in the study of genetics and biotechnology, but for 40 years after the rediscovery of Mendel's work and the rebirth of genetics, they were considered too simple to have genes, undergo mutation, or reproduce sexually. This is not surprising - bacteria are so small that it's very difficult to study individuals. Scientists had long observed differences between bacterial colonies, but had never realized that these differences were the results of mutations.It was well known that if a bacterial virus was added to a flask containing bacteria, the liquid in the flask would become clear, as if the virus had killed all the bacteria. However, with time, the flask would once again become cloudy as the bacterial population rebounded - now composed of virus-resistant bacteria. This happened even when all the bacteria in the flask were the clonal offspring of a single bacterium. Although such bacteria should have all been genetically identical, some of them were susceptible to the virus while others were resistant.Two explanations for this unexpected variation confronted the scientific community: either (1) exposure to the virus had caused some small proportion of the bacteria to become immune and able to pass this immunity on to their offspring, or (2) the virus-resistant form already existed in the colony prior to the introduction of the virus - having arisen through mutation - and it was selected for by the addition of the virus.To determine which explanation was correct, Salvador Luria and Max Delbruck, working together at Cold Spring Harbor during World War II, devised a test. According to Luria, his inspiration for the test was his observation of a colleague playing at a dime slot machine at a faculty dance. After consistently losing for some time, his friend finally hit the jackpot. Luria realized that if the slot machine distributed payoffs randomly, according only to chance, the payoff would usually be zero, occasionally be a few dimes, and almost never be a true jackpot. However, the machine he was observing had clearly been programmed to return an excess of both zeros and jackpots.Luria returned to the lab and set up a large number of bacterial cultures, starting each one from only a small number of cells. He allowed the cultures to grow for a while, then added virus and counted how many bacteria survived (were resistant). He reasoned that if resistance was induced in bacteria randomly, in response to contact with a virus, it would be expected to occur at a zero or low level in all cultures - like the zero or small payoffs from a slot machine operating by chance. Alternatively, if resistance was the result of a mutation, the results would be analogous to the payoff from a programmed slot machine. Most bacteria in most cultures would not mutate, but if one did, it would reproduce and when the virus was added there would be many survivors - a jackpot! By looking at the fluctuations in the pattern of payoff (viral resistance), he and Delbruck could determine whether they were governed purely by chance or if the game was "rigged" by mutation.It turned out that the number of resistant bacteria varied greatly between cultures; the fluctuations in payoff were far too great to be accounted for purely by chance. These fluctuations proved that bacteria did undergo mutation - and that the resistance to the virus they used in the experiment (a T1 bacteriophage) arose through such mutation.By analyzing their data further, Luria and Delbruck were also able to determine the rate of bacterial mutation from virus-sensitive to virus-resistant. The likelihood of any single bacterium mutating during each cell division was extremely low - only about one in a hundred million, explaining why it was so difficult to detect and study bacterial mutations. Luria and Delbruck were successful because they created a method that screened for the outcomes of such rare events. They screened for the mutation from virus-sensitive to virus-resistant by exposing the cultures to the fatal virus. Other mutations, for which there was no such screening method, would have been almost impossible to detect. "So there you have it. A repeatable experiment showing mutation & natural selection do indeed occur.Now, can we return to my original post?What stops evolution occurring given mutation & natural selection are observable.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-17-2001]

quote:

---

Originally posted by redstang281:
What you consider evidence of evolution, I consider misinterpritations and in some cases even frauds.

​

---

The example I gave regarding mutating bacteria is proven by repeatable experiment. Whats to misinterpret? You will have to do better than baseless accusations of fraud.In fact, the experiments I quoted were undertaken in 1943, creationists that you have listened to you knew this. Yet they lied to you when they said there was no evidence of selective positive mutations. They've been in denial ever since.Back to my original challenge to creationists."What stops evolution occurring given mutation & natural selection are observable."I have shown both natural selection & that selective positive mutations exist. So whats the problem with evolution. What stops it happening?------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-17-2001]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-17-2001]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Mark24: Mutations do effectively scramble existing genetic information. But this IS new information. It is interpreted into different proteins that may have NEVER existed before

​

This is incorrect. I’ve been trained in and have been applying information science to my work for over 18 years. A new protein arising is no more new information than a new capacitance on a circuit board that suffers a short. Randomness destroys information. Randomness cannot build information. It is impossible.

​

---

If I wrote a word that no one had written before it would be new, by definition. If I randomly pulled letters out of a scrabble set, & got the same word, it would still be new. It can only be impossible if were defining "new" in different ways.What do you define as new?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Information science is devastating to the evolutionist position. You simply cannot have a code without a sender.

---

If the sender changes, or something happens during sending, the code is changed. Or , that the code can define the sender as well. "In 1970, several cases of where RNA sequences are used to specify DNA nucleotide sequences." (Moore & Slusher 1970 p114)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

This is the only mechanism informed evolutionists propose for new genetic information — gene duplication followed by mutation. There are many problems with this. Random gene duplication is rare. When it does occur, it often causes harm, such as Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT). If the duplication is neutral, the odds of a subsequent beneficial mutation are astronomically low. Even if we got a hypothetical beneficial mutation, the odds of it being recognized by selection are very low. In fact, evolutionists generally agree that a beneficial mutation has no better than a 1 in 50 chance of survival in a population! (Fisher, Futuyma, etc). Then there’s the problem of fixing the gene in the entire population. Haldane showed in mammals that this rate can be no better than 1 ever 30 generations in a large population (the problem is worse in a small population due to drift). It’s a pipe dream think evolution can proceed this way. There certainly is no empirical evidence to support this.

​

---

To counter the first part, I'm not saying gene replication isn't rare, nor that it isn't harmful, more often than not. But "it often causes harm" isn't "always causes harm". Natural selection culls the harmful ones, ignores the neutral ones, & positively selects for the the remainder.Also, polyploids - Increasing chromosome count.If a population consists of a billion indiviuals who produce 1 +ve mutation (about 1% of mutations/generation, & 1/50th chance of gene survival, then a 1/30th chance of the gene to become general the population thats still nearly 667,000 +ve mutations that become adopted, & general to the population, PER generation. Next generation you've got another 667,000 genes that become general to the population, & due to to selective environmental pressures you accept, would generally reinforce the 667,000 mutated genes already in existence...... & so on.....---------------------------------------------"There certainly is no empirical evidence to support this."So, you will only accept increase in protein complexity if I can show it. Empirical evidence.I maintain that the direct descent of organisms over time is the best theory to fit available evidence, there is no empirical evidence of an Intelligent Designer. Phylogenies, based on evidences of amino acid sequences (showing insertion, addition, & deletions.) taxonomic, immunolgical, etc. all support each other. That I can't provide directly observable evidence of protein addition, it nevertheless remains the best theory.I only adhere to evolution as the best explanation in the absence of empirical evidence of a creator. Perhaps you should apply your own reasoning to your own concusions. You say I have no empirical evidence, well, intelligent design requires an intelligent designer. Empirical evidence please.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
1) There is not a geneticist in the world who believes 1 in 100 mutations are beneficial. It’s hard enough for geneticists to come up with even one compelling example of a mutation that is beneficial to a population. I’ve yet to see one compelling example. Virtually every study I’ve seen of mutations that cause resistance, for example, always cause some other problem within the orgnanism. For example, mosquitos that become resistant to DDT are slower.
2) You misunderstand the Haldane number. His analysis showed that at best ONE beneficial substitution could occur in a population every 30 generations. Just ONE, in the entire population. Not 50, or 667,000. Just ONE every 30 generations. Walter Remine documents this problem in detail in his book The Biotic Message. Given this number, at most 1667 beneficial substitutions could have been made over 10 million years between man and man/monkey ancestor. The amazing thing is that Haldane used very favorable assumptions. Using more realistic assumptions and the problem gets much worse (as if it needed to get worse!).

​

" In fact, evolutionists generally agree that a beneficial mutation has no better than a 1 in 50 chance of survival in a population! (Fisher, Futuyma, etc).

​

---

I gave an example of beneficial mutation in this thread, 60 years old.Which figure is it to be 1 in 50 or 1 in 100 or more?Also, Haldane is 40 years in his grave & I fail to see how modern genetics have been included in his calculations.Haldane believed in Panspermia too. Do you believe in Panspermia, since what Haldane says is good enough for you?------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-20-2001]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
If I wrote a word that no one had written before it would be new, by definition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

It’s not new information unless it has meaning. Don’t let Shannon statistical information fool you into thinking that meaning is not required for it to be information. If you give it meaning, it is not information to me unless you tell me what it means.

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the sender changes, or something happens during sending, the code is changed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Huh? The code can never change unless there is prior agreement between sender & receiver. I think you are confusing code with message. Some examples of a code are Morse, Basic, C, English language, Chinese language, DNA.

​

---

"In 1970, several cases of where RNA sequences are used to specify DNA nucleotide sequences." (Moore & Slusher 1970 p114)Arguing from inside your argument, wouldn't they both be sender & receiver at the same time?Since you obviously reject this, what constitutes a receiver in genetics?------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Wasn't the ribosome a product of the DNA itself?------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ekimklaw:
Evolutionists always get hung up on microbes and hemoglobin and Galapogos finches and neurons and minutia like that. No one denies micro-evolution. However, macro-evolution is pure horse manure, and completely impossible to defend in light of the scientific method.

---

Explain why. Given you accept the adoption of mutation in a species due to ns, What is the limiting factor?------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:
Mutations, ummm....how should I put this. Are very harmful to the DNA code, disordering the already existing information. Therefore, mutations are even more limiting than no mutations since mutations make the DNA code worse, not better. A heap of mutations won't just make a monkeys mind expand into a humans mind, perhaps rather limit it instead.

---

The first part about mutations being necessarily harmful is patently wrong, as is evidenced by my reply to Redstang281 at beginning of this thread (about halfway down 1st page). Put simply Bacteria mutated & were able to survive virus'.So the question remains, whats the limit?Also, if your going to condescend, you better make reeeeeeeeeeal sure of your information.

RetroCrono,Ask a genuine question without condescending at me & I’ll try my best.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:
I consider bacteria and living systems to be very different things. Even though they both can be classed as living, bacteria does not know of its existance and living systems have a number of attributes that makes them seperatable.

​

---

That bacteria are living organisms is not in issue. Ask any of the better informed creationists here. A bacteria IS a living system, it needs nutrition, it respires, reproduces etc. It’s knowledge of its existence is utterly irrelevant, plants don’t either, nor does someone in a coma, what’s the diff? Separating bacteria from other life forms is a bit silly, you have single celled plants & animals that aren’t bacteria.
If you mean the difference between single & multicellular life, so what? The genetic stuffs the same. Again, don’t take my word for it ask any of the other creationists. The same processes are required for mutation, just asserting that it is single celled is irrelevant. Mutation that has a positive effect, & is then culled by natural selection, can & has entered a general population.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:

If you can tell me how a mutation can be benneficial (where talking about the evolving of living systems here) and prove that it didn't have that existing DNA information before I'd be interested in hearing it.

---

Since you never read it, I’ll post again, so I apologise to other members."Today bacteria are an important tool in the study of genetics and biotechnology, but for 40 years after the rediscovery of Mendel's work and the rebirth of genetics, they were considered too simple to have genes, undergo mutation, or reproduce sexually. This is not surprising - bacteria are so small that it's very difficult to study individuals. Scientists had long observed differences between bacterial colonies, but had never realized that these differences were the results of mutations.
It was well known that if a bacterial virus was added to a flask containing bacteria, the liquid in the flask would become clear, as if the virus had killed all the bacteria. However, with time, the flask would once again become cloudy as the bacterial population rebounded - now composed of virus-resistant bacteria. This happened even when all the bacteria in the flask were the clonal offspring of a single bacterium. Although such bacteria should have all been genetically identical, some of them were susceptible to the virus while others were resistant.
Two explanations for this unexpected variation confronted the scientific community: either (1) exposure to the virus had caused some small proportion of the bacteria to become immune and able to pass this immunity on to their offspring, or (2) the virus-resistant form already existed in the colony prior to the introduction of the virus - having arisen through mutation - and it was selected for by the addition of the virus.
To determine which explanation was correct, Salvador Luria and Max Delbruck, working together at Cold Spring Harbor during World War II, devised a test. According to Luria, his inspiration for the test was his observation of a colleague playing at a dime slot machine at a faculty dance. After consistently losing for some time, his friend finally hit the jackpot. Luria realized that if the slot machine distributed payoffs randomly, according only to chance, the payoff would usually be zero, occasionally be a few dimes, and almost never be a true jackpot. However, the machine he was observing had clearly been programmed to return an excess of both zeros and jackpots.
Luria returned to the lab and set up a large number of bacterial cultures, starting each one from only a small number of cells. He allowed the cultures to grow for a while, then added virus and counted how many bacteria survived (were resistant). He reasoned that if resistance was induced in bacteria randomly, in response to contact with a virus, it would be expected to occur at a zero or low level in all cultures - like the zero or small payoffs from a slot machine operating by chance. Alternatively, if resistance was the result of a mutation, the results would be analogous to the payoff from a programmed slot machine. Most bacteria in most cultures would not mutate, but if one did, it would reproduce and when the virus was added there would be many survivors - a jackpot! By looking at the fluctuations in the pattern of payoff (viral resistance), he and Delbruck could determine whether they were governed purely by chance or if the game was "rigged" by mutation.
It turned out that the number of resistant bacteria varied greatly between cultures; the fluctuations in payoff were far too great to be accounted for purely by chance. These fluctuations proved that bacteria did undergo mutation - and that the resistance to the virus they used in the experiment (a T1 bacteriophage) arose through such mutation.
By analyzing their data further, Luria and Delbruck were also able to determine the rate of bacterial mutation from virus-sensitive to virus-resistant. The likelihood of any single bacterium mutating during each cell division was extremely low - only about one in a hundred million, explaining why it was so difficult to detect and study bacterial mutations. Luria and Delbruck were successful because they created a method that screened for the outcomes of such rare events. They screened for the mutation from virus-sensitive to virus-resistant by exposing the cultures to the fatal virus. Other mutations, for which there was no such screening method, would have been almost impossible to detect. "

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:

I find you can easily draw a line on the biology of DNA. Why do you think you can't get a horse and a fox to successfully mate? Even though the horse supposedly evolved from the fox it just goes to show DNA isn't all free range like you seem to think.

---

Who said DNA was free range?What is the biology of DNA?Horses & Foxes can’t mate because they are different species. Unless DNA is matched relatively closely no viable organism will result. The generally accepted definition of species is that of an organisms that can produce fertile young. Why fertile? Well, interestingly, the line is blurred between the point where organisms can produce young, & not produce young. It is possible for two closely related species to produce infertile hybrids. Eg Horse & donkey produce mules. There is NO species of mule, they are purely the product of horses & donkeys. I live in the UK where there is a fish group called cyprinids, these are represented by bream, roach, rudd, carp, chub, dace, they all can hybridise.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-23-2001]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RetroCrono:
[b]

quote:

---

Where did you hear that horses were supposed to be descended from foxes, anyway?

---

Several evolutionist actually. My teacher for one and I can also remember reading a text book showing the artist conceptions from the fox to the horse.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:

Anyway, one example is still pretty useless. I can name countless harmful mutations compared to only perhaps at best several useful mutations (even then I'm exagerating on the several). Now, I can remember reading that about 99.9% of mutations are harmful. If we compare that to what really would of happen you'll find the ToE is just plain wrong. I'll be really leanient and give you about 10% of useful mutations to work with. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is what I was told how things evolve. Every several generations a new gene is formed. Using the leanient harmful to useful mutations ratio, this would most likely be a harmful mutation. Now, after 10 new genes have formed after about 30-100 generations, 9 harmful genes would have formed and 1 useful gene would have formed. How is it possible then that life went from unordered to ordered if in reality it gets worse. Just because you want to ignore God do you also get to ignore reality and comman sense as well? How did a monkey/ape's brain evolve into a superior thinking brain if it can only overall get dumber? Was it that everything was made perfect in the beginning much like the accounts of Genesis claim and since then everything has slowly been degerating, which, observing the evidence is what you see.

​

---

One example that proves CONCLUSIVELY that positive mutation a/ happens b/ becomes general to a population via natural selection is enough. Look up conclusively. It happened & saying it didn’t won’t help.Latest information indicates that most mutations are neutral, only a small proportion being negative or positive. Get a recent textbook.Those several evolutionists should be horsewhipped. I suggest you don’t listen to them. The evolution of the horse NEVER suggested it evolved from a fox. I doubt the fossil record shows foxes at the time of Hyracotherium.How did a monkey/ape's brain evolve into a superior thinking brain if it can only overall get dumber?This is your inference, not ToE.and since then everything has slowly been degerating, which, observing the evidence is what you see.Evidence pls.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:

When entering this topic again I found the name of this topic rather pointless. You have to define evolution. If your talking about can creationist show macro-evolution never happened then I can straight away say yes, since you are yet to show that it did happen, let alone possibly could. Nobody ignores micro-evolution, the evolving of new breeds/species within a kind. But I believe the true evolution that takes place is what goes on with each and every person. The evolving of there emotions and mind. However, just because someone evolves within there generation, doesn't mean they pass on evolved DNA blue prints. Your DNA blue print is decided upon when your born so that is what will be passed on. There's no survival of the fittest and natural selection evolving going on, that is just a Darwin myth. Would you care to explain why the Jewish still need to be circumsised, or why there are dogs that have had there tails docked for centuries yet they continue to be born with tails? This doesn't seem to fit in with this so called "evolving" going on.

---

I did define it. In my very first post, no less. I should have included the mechanism of neutral drift, recombination, & lateral gene transfer, but the definition stands.If your talking about can creationist show macro-evolution never happened then I can straight away say yes, since you are yet to show that it did happen, let alone possibly could.That I can’t observe it happening it doesn’t mean it didn’t/isn’t. Do you realise the implication for your God, if you apply this statement to him? LOLHow do you have micro-evolution that you accept, without natural selection that you don’t accept?My DNA blueprint was decided when i was CONCEIVED, not born.Regarding Jews, nobody HAS to be circumcised, it’s a religious practice & what this has to do with nat sel I don’t know!! If Jews stopped ritual circumcision today, they would be no better/worse off than other people who are uncircumcised. GOOD GRIEF!The genetic information in a dog that makes it have a tail is not contained in the tail!!!! So when dogs breed they SHOULD have a tail, even if they’re docked at birth. GOOD GRIEF!! They could be bred not to have one, given enough time selecting dogs with shorter tails than others, & breeding them. Kind of unnatural selection.The rest of the personal evolution is waffle & has nothing to do with the genetic processes at issue.There are plenty of examples of natural selection, rather than me do a web search, you take a stroll on the net for yourself. I don't mean Answers in Genesis either.RetroCrono, I say this with respect, because we all have to learn it somewhere. But this post has just made you look a bit silly, regarding docked tails & Jews. It shows a complete lack of knowledge of ToE, genetics & heredity. The simple stuff. If you have made such a decision that evolution couldn't have happened, then you have clearly done it from a position of ignorance.Count yourself lucky I got to this post before Schrafinator.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-26-2001]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-26-2001]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-26-2001]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:
My point still stands, you obviously didn't see the point I was trying to make about dogs or the Jews. Wouldn't they have evolved to "adapt", like the dolphin began to "adapt to the water. You admit the DNA is decided upon conception, so then how can anything possibly evolve to suit there environment. The DNA you get when your conceived is what you'll pass on. Meaning, with in each creatures life what ever evolving/adapting goes on won't be passed on and that was the point I was trying to make with the dogs and the Jews. You openly admitted that with your last reply that this is the case, so how do things evolve. Don't just tell me look at sites on the net as they tell me nothing, except "survival of the fittest", "Gene Flow", "Mutations", "Natural Selection", etc. I know all that and it is all pretty much wrong. Saying stuff like Offspring are similar, but not identical to their parents is absurd. Of course there not identical, but they are the exact make up of there parents meaning they cannot be anything but a make up of there parents. The reason they will stay within there kind is because they cannot bread outside of there kind, Gene flow is impossible, it will never work. Mutations are almost always harmful, you give me one case of a useful mutation and that is it, some other evolutionist know a few others but not many. Harmful mutations out way it hands down, off the top of my head, blindness, deafness, aids, cancer, heart failure, collapsed lungs, disordered muscle growth and I could go on for ages. Just ask and I will, that is clear cut evidence that things get worse.

​

---

EXACTLY what was your point regarding docked tails & Jews circumcision?I have given you a case where a positive mutation & natural selection occurs. Argue with the conclusion if you wish, blanket statements that it can’t happen, when I have shown it does will not help.blindness, deafness, aids, cancer, heart failure, collapsed lungs, disordered muscle growthhow is heart failure a mutation? Or collapsed lung? Or AIDS (the virus!) deafness & blindness can both be caused by recessive genes & not mutation, man you’re a peach!I didn’t admit you get the DNA from conception, I pointed it out to you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:

Why has it made me look silly, I've got you right where I want you. You admitted exactly the point I was trying to make, if your DNA is decided upon when your conceived (yeah, I made a mistake about saying born but the point was still there) then anything that goes on with in anythings life time as in evolving and adapting to there environment will not be passed on. I made this point quite clear with the Jews and the dogs and you could clearly see that this won't do anything. So then how do things evolve? I can see you don't know, and just leaving it up to make believe stuff like survival of the fittest will not answer the question at hand. I know I only have a basic understanding of genetics & hereidty. Enough to know evolution cannot be possible. I know that these laws were published after Darwin who believed it was all chance, perhaps evolution would be possible then. But it is now widely known it is decided upon precise mathematical ratios. Therefore a human will always be a human, a dog will be a dog, a cat will be a cat. I also know it states that life must come from life. In Darwins time they thought magots could just arrise from the garbage. Yet we know that the eggs must be laid there. How big a law does evolution want to break here. I know they've seen microscopic organism form but this is drasctically different then a structured ordered living system. Does evolution not break this law? Perhaps in the 1800's evolution might have been science, but now in the light of real science it doesn't work. Why do so many people still believe it is possible since science dissaproves it? Like Einstein's Big Bang Theory clearly forgets the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I know what you'll say to that. Gravity is what made it all ordered. But saying how it went about doing the impossible still does not justify for it doing the impossible.

​

Sorry guys, you are very unconvincing.

---

How is Einsteins 2nd Law ignored by the big bang?I await your description in detail, & conclusion of circumcised Jews & docked dogs tails re. evolution, with anticipation. Please assume I know nothing, & you're explaining it to someone who has never heard of heredity/genetics/evolution before.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:
I was just using Jews and dogs as examples that you pass on your DNA from when you were conceived,

​

---

No, you weren't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RetroCrono:

There's no survival of the fittest and natural selection evolving going on, that is just a Darwin myth. Would you care to explain why the Jewish still need to be circumsised, or why there are dogs that have had there tails docked for centuries yet they continue to be born with tails? This doesn't seem to fit in with this so called "evolving" going on.

---

You were telling me natural selection never happened, & asked me to explain why Jews still need to be circumcised, & why dogs that have had their tails docked for centuries are still born with tails.I'm asking how this shows natural selection, or "so called evolving" never happened.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Regarding the 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics, the universe is only a closed system if it is finite. This is unknown.Secondly, you're essentially claiming that from the initial conditions of the big bang, no greater order could arise. Why do electrons, protons & neutrons so readily form atoms? Why, if energy is supplied to chemical systems do they form more complex molecules? Clearly proving you wrong.In a closed system FINITE universe, entropy will increase. But a finite universe is made of many open systems, allowing molecules of greater complexity to form. In the end this finite system will run out of gas, but in the meantime it ticks along very nicely.The 2nd Law Of Thermodynamics does not contravene the big bang. So no, I'm not kidding.[/B][/QUOTE]------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-27-2001]

Fred

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Wasn't the ribosome a product of the DNA itself?

---

Speaking of avoiding things.....

​

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 12-28-2001]