Creationist - What about Evolution you disagree with?

[Pegg]

Then his argument is a rather silly and pathetic straw man of evolution. Natural selection is decidedly non-random...that's the entire point.

and the point that gets many people thinking (and doubting) is how could such randomness lead to such order?

 

[Noaidi]

and the point that gets many people thinking (and doubting) is how could such randomness lead to such order?

But it's just been pointed out to you that it is not random. The fact that the process is called natural selection should tell you this.

 

[painted wolf]

and the point that gets many people thinking (and doubting) is how could such randomness lead to such order?

The physical traits that let you survive in the Arctic are not random.

Selection for traits that help you survive there is not random. Even, if that selective process is completely natural.

This seems to be an unfortunately common mistake people have about evolution, that it is completely random. I really don't understand why people make this mistake.

wa:do

 

[Pegg]

But it's just been pointed out to you that it is not random. The fact that the process is called natural selection should tell you this.

natural selection IS random

Evolution has no 'goals' ... it simply produces whatever it produces

 

[Skwim]

The physical traits that let you survive in the Arctic are not random.

Selection for traits that help you survive there is not random. Even, if that selective process is completely natural.

This seems to be an unfortunately common mistake people have about evolution, that it is completely random. I really don't understand why people make this mistake.

wa:do

My guess is that they're confusing it with "random mutations," which would suggest they simply don't understand the operation at all.

 

[Skwim]

natural selection IS random

Evolution has no 'goals' ... it simply produces whatever it produces

So its a lack of goal that defines a random event. And when the tsunami hit the coast of Japan the other day it was a random event because the water had no goal to do so.

But aside from that, if natural selection is random at what point in the selection do you see this randomness taking place? IOW, what is the nature of this randomness?

 

[painted wolf]

natural selection IS random

Evolution has no 'goals' ... it simply produces whatever it produces

Not having "goals" is not the same as being completely random.

Evolution doesn't intend to give polar bears thick fur and a walrus blubber... but it's not random that they evolved ways to stay warm in the Arctic.

wa:do

 

[Pegg]

So its a lack of goal that defines a random event. And when the tsunami hit the coast of Japan the other day it was a random event because the water had no goal to do so.

But aside from that, if natural selection is random at what point in the selection do you see this randomness taking place? IOW, what is the nature of this randomness?

I dont believe it is random. The DNA has information in it... that information translates into physical traits and the information is very VERY specific

there is no way that the traits occur randomly because they re occur over and over again as if they were programmed to do so. Yes, the environment can cause changes in the traits, but it will still be the same trait...it wont morph into something completely different because it is still bound to operate within the parameters of the information contained in its genes.

 

[Pegg]

Not having "goals" is not the same as being completely random.

Evolution doesn't intend to give polar bears thick fur and a walrus blubber... but it's not random that they evolved ways to stay warm in the Arctic.

wa:do

no its not....its pre programmed into them.

For their DNA to contain the information means that someone had to put the information there in the first place.

A computer is only as good as the software uploaded in it.

 

[newhope101]

The physical traits that let you survive in the Arctic are not random.

Selection for traits that help you survive there is not random. Even, if that selective process is completely natural.

This seems to be an unfortunately common mistake people have about evolution, that it is completely random. I really don't understand why people make this mistake.

wa:do

People make this mistake because there are people like you over simplifying any response to any question and trying to make the proposer appear silly while bolstering themselves undeservedly. It is truly these simplistic responses that makes one look silly and ill informed. Half of 'it' is random the other half is lucky.:slap:

I think Pegg knows more than you despite all your attitude and supposed quals.:clap

Indeed humans are lucky to be here, the chimps, gorillas & orangs etc all missed out and are now being eradicated..brains were the way to go!!!!!.

Evolution by natural selection is a two-step process, and only the first step is random: mutations are chance events, but their survival is often anything but. Natural selection favours mutations that provide some advantage (see Evolution promotes the survival of species), and the physical world imposes very strict limits on what works and what doesn't. The result is that organisms evolve in particular directions.

Evolution myths: Evolution is random - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist

Genetic drift - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:yes:

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Here's one I would like explained by you anti-evolutionist (mainly newhope).

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2

Little experpt for ya.

There are many examples of rudimentary and nonfunctional vestigial characters carried by organisms, and these can very often be explained in terms of evolutionary histories. For example, from independent phylogenetic evidence, snakes are known to be the descendants of four-legged reptiles. Most pythons (which are legless snakes) carry vestigial pelvises hidden beneath their skin (Cohn 2001; Cohn and Tickle 1999). The vestigial pelvis in pythons is not attached to vertebrae (as is the normal case in most vertebrates), and it simply floats in the abdominal cavity. Some lizards carry rudimentary, vestigial legs underneath their skin, undetectable from the outside (Raynaud and Kan 1992).

Many cave dwelling animals, such as the fish Astyanax mexicanus (the Mexican tetra) and the salamander species Typhlotriton spelaeus and Proteus anguinus, are blind yet have rudimentary, vestigial eyes (Besharse and Brandon 1976; Durand et al. 1993; Jeffery 2001; Kos et al. 2001). The eyes of the Mexican tetra have a lens, a degenerate retina, a degenerate optic nerve, and a sclera, even though the tetra cannot see (Jeffery 2001). The blind salamanders have eyes with retinas and lenses, yet the eyelids grow over the eye, sealing them from outside light (Durand et al. 1993; Kos et al. 2001).

Another

Whale Anatomy and Photos of Limb Rudiments on Modern Day Whales

Exerpt:

We contacted Professor Hans Thewissen, Ph.D., whom is a renowned expert on Paleontology / Whale Anatomy / Whale Origins

This is what the Professor had to say in our exchange of emails:

J. G. M. Thewissen, Ph. D.
Thursday, July 24, 2003
Subject: Are these classified as vestigial limbs, or vestigial pelvises on whales in the museum photos?

For the record, all cetaceans that I am familiar with have pelvic remnants in their abdomen. Many cetaceans, especially the great whales, also have a remnant of the femur in their abdomen. I believe that humpbacks have the remnants for both pelvis and femur, but I will have to look it up to be sure (which I will do when I get your page). To say that the pelvis in the humpback is not a pelvis because it is not attached to the vertebral column is silly, we have a good series of fossils documenting that in early whale evolution, the pelvis bones detach from the vertebral column. At that point they totally look like pelves still (with obturator foramen, ilium, ischium). I attach a pdf of a paper that has a picture showing some early pelves. (BioScience: Whale Evolution, the Poster Child for MacroEvolution).

To say that a pelvic remnant does not qualify as a limb remnant because it is not limb is technically correct. Anatomists would call it the limb girdle, but that is just semantics, limbs are always attached to limb girdles. Anyway it does not even matter in your case if humpbacks have femoral remnants as well. It is also silly to say that it can't be pelvis because genital muscles attach to the bone. (*)The genital muscles attach always to the pelvis, including in humans and artiodactyls (whales' relatives). That argument would actually support the homology of the bone to the pelvis, the opposite of what AIG claims. Send me the page and we'll talk more.

Hans Thewissen

"In 1881 Struthers published, On the Bones, Articulations, and Muscles of The Rudimentary Hind-Limb of the Greenland Right-Whale (Balaena mysticetus). J. Anat. and Physiol. XV: 141-321. In it he wrote:

'Nothing can be imagined more useless to the animal than rudiments of hind legs entirely buried beneath the skin of a whale, so that one is inclined to suspect that these structures must admit of some other interpretation. Yet, approaching the inquiry with the most skeptical determination, one cannot help being convinced, as the dissection goes on, that these rudiments [in the Right Whale] really are femur and tibia. The synovial capsule representing the knee-joint was too evident to be overlooked. An acetabular cartilage, synovial cavity, and head of femur, together represent the hip-joint. Attached to this femur is an apparatus of constant and strong ligaments, permitting and restraining movements in certain directions; and muscles are present, some passing to the femur from distant parts, some proceeding immediately from the pelvic bone to the femur, by which movements of the thigh-bone are performed; and these ligaments and muscles present abundant instances of exact and interesting adaptation. But the movements of the femur are extremely limited, and in two of these whales the hip-joint as firmly anchylosed, in one of them on one side, in the other on both sides, without trace of disease, showing that these movements may be dispensed with. The function point of view fails to account for the presence of a femur in addition to processes from the pelvic bone. Altogether, these hind legs in this whale present for contemplation a most interesting instance of those significant parts in an animal -- rudimentary structures'.

Looking forward to hearing your response.

 

[Skwim]

I dont believe it is random.

Good.

The DNA has information in it... that information translates into physical traits and the information is very VERY specific

there is no way that the traits occur randomly because they re occur over and over again as if they were programmed to do so. Yes, the environment can cause changes in the traits, but it will still be the same trait...it wont morph into something completely different because it is still bound to operate within the parameters of the information contained in its genes.

In that case the changed trait would necessarily be different from the original. The fact is, the only way a change in a trait can occur is if the genetic message is different--has changed. Now that difference doesn't need to be great, however if it introduces some survival advantage to the organism then it and its offspring will eventually better survive those that didn't incur the change. And this process of change, involving many, many small random mutations, will eventually---over perhaps hundreds to thousands of years---radically change the organism from the original form. And over millions of years accumulated mutations may so change it that it no longer resembles its ancestor in the least. In fact, the original trait may even be lost.

 

[newhope101]

Here's one I would like explained by you anti-evolutionist (mainly newhope).

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 2

Little experpt for ya.



Another

Whale Anatomy and Photos of Limb Rudiments on Modern Day Whales

Exerpt:






Looking forward to hearing your response.

Well although I would not bother otherwise, I'll give you a simple reply.

Have you ever heard of the research that illustrates how traits arise independently.

What vestal organs were so convincing that some researchers went looking for another bird ancestor in the face of the dino to bird theory.
Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links

And you lot are still busy trying to explain what the hell use is a half wing.

As for the hippo to whale fiasco ...your vestigal organs are about as usefull as tits on a bull. Morphological comparisons shows pigs to be closer to hippos. The DNA disproves that apparently. That is assuming of course your researchers know anything of what they are on about given their insistence on ancestry!. Now you have had to go find a whole lot of other so called vestigal organs to prove another ancestry. In other words your researchers can poof any evidence into existence by pointing to something that looks a little similar to that. They could probably show how whales evolved from humans if they tried to!!!!!!!
Hippo ancestry disputed


So the answer is..all this rubbish you refered to and demanded a respose to... is straw grabbing nonsense.

 

[David M]

So the answer is..all this rubbish you refered to and demanded a respose to... is straw grabbing nonsense.

Translation: I have no answer so I will try and divert people with irrelevancies rather than address the actual questions.

 

[McBell]

So the answer is..all this rubbish you refered to and demanded a respose to... is straw grabbing nonsense.

You are MOST definitely the RF Resident expert on grasping at straws...

 

[RitalinO.D.]

So the answer is..all this rubbish you refered to and demanded a respose to... is straw grabbing nonsense.

Exactly the response I was expecting, thanks for proving my point

Although I do have to give you a smidge of credit. At least you answered this post, as opposed to the ice core post you conveniently ignored. would still love to have that one answered tho. Suppose I'll take what I can get.


Oh, and when did I "Demand" a response to it? That just goes further to prove you don't read much.

 

[newhope101]

Well although I would not bother otherwise, I'll give you a simple reply.

Have you ever heard of the research that illustrates how traits arise independently.

What vestal organs were so convincing that some researchers went looking for another bird ancestor in the face of the dino to bird theory.
Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links

And you lot are still busy trying to explain what the hell use is a half wing.

As for the hippo to whale fiasco ...your vestigal organs are about as usefull as tits on a bull. Morphological comparisons shows pigs to be closer to hippos. The DNA disproves that apparently. That is assuming of course your researchers know anything of what they are on about given their insistence on ancestry!. Now you have had to go find a whole lot of other so called vestigal organs to prove another ancestry. In other words your researchers can poof any evidence into existence by pointing to something that looks a little similar to that. They could probably show how whales evolved from humans if they tried to!!!!!!!
Hippo ancestry disputed


So the answer is..all this rubbish you refered to and demanded a respose to... is straw grabbing nonsense.

No Rit, In actual fact I have illustrated how your morphological evidence of any kind is the invention of an over imaginative mind.

The appendix (above), which evolutionists thought to be a vestigial organ, has now been understood to play an important part in the body's immune system. The coccyx at the lower end of the vertebral column is also not a vestigial organ but provides an attachment for our pelvic organs so that they will not collapse.
http://www.harunyahya.com/refuted11.php

http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j14_2/j14_2_50-53.pdf

ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES UNKNOWN

Fossils may look like human bones: Biological anthropologists question claims for human ancestry

A little information is a dangerous thing. Hence many great ideas fall flat on their face. The biggest thing I don't like about TOE is that grandious claims are continually made and then thrown away into the garbage bin of solid evidence past and nothing more than the machinations of an overactive imagination. eg LUCA & horizontal gene transfer, birds, knuckle walking ancestry etc. Your researchers look at the same evidence and disagree, sometimes at major levels eg birds, neanderthal, out of Afica supporters vs opposition etc.. Why have faith in any of it? If you do, that's great. If you wish to be respected for it..I'll try harder to see your view from now on. However do not insist that I should convert or else I must be an uncredentialed idiot that is unable to make an informed choice.

Ancient teeth raise new questions about origins of modern humans

I see humans first appearing where they should be. All sorts of apes like Ardi and Lucy created before humans like they should be and no evidence that these were any more than variations of apes, possibly land apes like a gorrilla or decendants from the flat faced Lluc. Your dating methods and molecular dating methods have inconsistencies and are based on presumptions and possibilities. Creationists can similarly work the insertion values to get the dates they want. I may as well put faith in Sanford and God 'poofing' creation into existence as believe in TOE.

Genetic Entropy and Genetic Debris

 

[McBell]

No Rit, In actual fact I have illustrated how your morphological evidence of any kind is the invention of an over imaginative mind.

Really?
Where?
I must have missed it?
Please link to the thread you did this in, cause I would like to see it and cannot find it in this thread.

 

[McBell]

That just goes further to prove you don't read much.

Well, it most certainly adds to the growing amount of evidence that her reading comprehension skills are severely lacking.

 

[RitalinO.D.]

Your dating methods and molecular dating methods have inconsistencies and are based on presumptions and possibilities

So the dating methods are inconsistent, yet you claim to be an OEC, a fact that only exists due to those same dating methods. Ironic. So what are you, a OEC or YEC? How old do you think the earth is?

Do you doubt Ice Core dating?
Do you doubt geological dating? And Im refering to sedimentary layer dating, not radiocarbon dating.

If so, show me data proving it false.

I may as well put faith in Sanford and God 'poofing' creation into existence as believe in TOE.

That's right, put faith into a self proclaimed YEC, which contradicts what you believe. I got to be honest, you go back and forth so often I'm starting to think you dont even know what you believe.