Evolution is a Big Lie

[Iti oj]

I am ignorant on the subject of evolution but it seems that common sense would say that everything starts out with all of the information in tact and as time progresses things loose information and change over time eventually loosing enough to even become extinct.
I wouldn't think that mutations would ever add information but would actually contribute to the loss of information.
Like I said I am over my head but this just seems like common sense.
I guess this creates a problem of how did the information get in tact but this would be a problem many want to avoid.

you forgot about survival of the fittest natural selection...only the good mutations survie to breed.

 

[Walkntune]

Exactly, mutations would not allow for more complex species.

So the only evidence is some transitional fossils which are the effects of change but the direction of whether information was gained or lost is speculation?
Why would they not speculate that things go from order to disorder? Why the other way?Sorry I am a layman here but if someone wanted to convince me of evolution what we would be the short layman answer to this?

 

[Shermana]

The species problem is to know how and when to account something as a new species.....

That's part of it, and every new "species" observed is not really a new species.

in evolution, since it takes so long and only works with small changes their is no problem.

Except for the fact that these "Small changes" would result in deleterious effects every single time and thus EVERY species would lead to the "dead end pool".

Everything comes from its own species, everything is mostly the same as the thing before it.

Except we have no concrete evidence of what came before anything or what anything supposedly evolved from.

their is only a species problem when looking at it in retro spect its not like one day you have a bear that gave birth to a new species by the time its a new species it has descended from a long line of things similar to it,

There is a species problem involved with how to classify new forms of the same species, and thus the issue of whether what is observed is truly "Macro-evolution". As it stands, there is no concrete way of proving anything came from anything discovered as of yet, it is purely speculation, and as I demonstrated with Habilus and Australopithecus, a lot of these prized speculations end up being discarded as the wrong "path" a few years later.

.

Its a gradual procces and something albiet look and act different can bread together making them the same species but add a few thousand years and see what evolution does...

A few thousand years can at best cause a few changes. There's not nearly enough time in the few hundred million year time scale for mammals and reptiles to even develop as lightning-fast (relatively) as is claimed. This is a major unresolved paradox.

bet you they wont be able to bread boom transition much? I already replied to your point about most mutations being bad thanks for reading my post let me repeat myself, "Of course most mutations are bad that's to be expected. Whats your point?

Exactly, that's all you replied. The point is that it wouldn't be possible with constant deleterious information loss, perhaps?

evolution takes place over a geological time scale so plenty of time for the good and bad mutations to sort out

Quite the contrary, you'd need TRILLIONS of years, many trillions of years for the results of the process to happen. Want to get into the math? How many years do you think it took to get from tailed monkey-thing to tailless Cro magnon with arched feet? Give an estimate.

and for the good ones to accumulate," sooo yeah what was your point again? your right i ignored you h.habilis point mostly because i don't feel like a he said she said argument and why waste time looking up one point when the rest of your posts are nonsense

Translation: You don't want to admit that two of the poster children for Macro-evolution have been largely discredited or get into the reasons why, leaving you with even less 'Transitionary" forms in the missing link hierarchy.

.

you gave me to much to refute sorry i missed refuting one point.

A very crucial point.

over all even if your right so what? does that disprove evolution or any of the other transitions i mentioned? no not at all.

Actually, yes it does. It proves that mutation-based macro-evolution is not sustainable, and that there's not NEARLY enough time for it to happen. Once again, you want to get into the math of how long it would take for each major transition? How many millions of years per transition?

its a pointless point. who cares?

Not really, it's only a pointless point for someone trying to hide from the gaping discrepencies.

Now gould... the fossil record has gaps do to how hard it is to form fossils we are lucky to have as many as we do. the fossil record is not evolution just something evolution uses to provide examples.

To provide examples of which the gaps are MASSIVE and where the "Evidence' is speculative ast best.

their is more then enough evidence in biology and gentics for evolution to make sense even if we had no fossil record ( i believe dawkins said that in the god delusion.)

Post some that doesn't involve only small micro-evolutionary changes.

you seem to misunderstand everything about evolution from its timescale to survival of the fittest, to the idea of a family tree with lots of dead ends. and im not going to waste time pointing out how your like a creationist troll its a derail im ignoring

How exactly am I derailing? Do you even know what OP you're on? Calling me a troll isn't exactly a substitute for getting into the specifics. The fact that there are nothing but "dead ends" without any evidence of what they transition from apparently means nothing in the objectivity department, but if there's evidence that it could NOT have happened, you throw it out. Feel free to not "waste any time" like actually quoting from your links.

 

[Iti oj]

So the only evidence is some transitional fossils which are the effects of change but the direction of whether information was gained or lost is speculation?
Why would they not speculate that things go from order to disorder? Why the other way?Sorry I am a layman here but if someone wanted to convince me of evolution what we would be the short layman answer to this?

natural selection...survival of the fittest. these keep the order these keep the progression. every one stop treating each issue as separate evolution works as a whole not as small pieces.

 

[Shermana]

So the only evidence is some transitional fossils which are the effects of change but the direction of whether information was gained or lost is speculation?
Why would they not speculate that things go from order to disorder? Why the other way?Sorry I am a layman here but if someone wanted to convince me of evolution what we would be the short layman answer to this?

Because there's tons of sweet grant money (and ideological forces) involved with trying to push the idea that order can arise from disorder and that somehow mutations cause information and overall gain rather than loss as well as sustainability.

 

[Walkntune]

you forgot about survival of the fittest natural selection...only the good mutations survie to breed.

I would still see this as say two dogs had the information in them to produce long or short hair.Say they produced both long and short haired dogs in a cold climate. The short haired dogs would die while the long haired dogs survived.Eventually the dogs might loose the information to produce short haired dogs and over time may become extinc like animals do.There was never no new information as the original dogs had all of the information?Does this not make sense?
I know I am only speaking from what seems like common sense but i would like to understand? To me it even seems to fit with the second law of of things going from order to disorder.

 

[outhouse]

Not necessarily. If you say its a confirmed fact that they do represent a transition, then that's exactly what I'm talking about.

Now here's an example from my articles: First on the arched feet, which no one has any clue how it really happened other than making guesses and notes based on the physiology. It's far from as cut and dry as the Macro-evolutionists insist on. And yes, Random mutations mostly result in failures because....mutations always result in a deleterious effect in general sustainability, even if one advantage is gained.

And the Bat-wing, which no one has a real clue about.

this is a severe lapse in your ignorance on the subject at hand.

This does nothing to disprove evolution, only disporves your knowledge of the learning proccess my friend.


This only shows we need more evidence [fossils] in certain areas to prove different types of anthropology NOT EVOLUTION.

really your desperation is pathetic

 

[outhouse]

Thanks for ignoring the bulk of my post. no reply?

get used to it

many of these creationist are forced to find gaps in anthropology and other areas of science because they know they will get boxed n a corner rather quickly so the squirm like a fish on a hook

 

[outhouse]

. Can you quote a single Creationist Rhetoric I've made so far?

thast only because you CANNOT Talk about creationism because there is NOTHING talk about.


Evolution is backed by a mountain of evidence, fossils, DNS, and observations in and out of the lab.


creationism has ZERO evidence and is based off known myths ancient men created to explain the natural world around them they knew nothing about.

 

[outhouse]

So the only evidence is some transitional fossils which are the effects of change but the direction of whether information was gained or lost is speculation?
Why would they not speculate that things go from order to disorder? Why the other way?Sorry I am a layman here but if someone wanted to convince me of evolution what we would be the short layman answer to this?

Simply put in something that is far from simple.

read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

 

[outhouse]

Because there's tons of sweet grant money (and ideological forces) involved with trying to push the idea that order can arise from disorder and that somehow mutations cause information and overall gain rather than loss as well as sustainability.

false you should not poison minds interested in learning with blatant misinformation.

 

[outhouse]

I would still see this as say two dogs had the information in them to produce long or short hair.Say they produced both long and short haired dogs in a cold climate. The short haired dogs would die while the long haired dogs survived.Eventually the dogs might loose the information to produce short haired dogs and over time may become extinc like animals do.There was never no new information as the original dogs had all of the information?Does this not make sense?
I know I am only speaking from what seems like common sense but i would like to understand? To me it even seems to fit with the second law of of things going from order to disorder.

then do a google search on canine evolution and enjoy the read.

asking some creationist with no valid knowledge at all on the subject will only confuse you.

 

[Iti oj]

Because there's tons of sweet grant money (and ideological forces) involved with trying to push the idea that order can arise from disorder and that somehow mutations cause information and overall gain rather than loss as well as sustainability.

Why is mutation inherently bad? its random, it can be good or bad, ill get back to your longer post soon i don't have any of my resources with me. its not a gain or loss in information(well sometimes it is.) but can also be just a change.

 

[Iti oj]

get used to it

many of these creationist are forced to find gaps in anthropology and other areas of science because they know they will get boxed n a corner rather quickly so the squirm like a fish on a hook

Thank you i was starting to get frustrated. it kills me how many times before? I think i need a change of topics instead of pointing out when evolution is superior i should point out why their "theory" fails.

 

[outhouse]

Thank you i was starting to get frustrated. it kills me how many times before? I think i need a change of topics instead of pointing out when evolution is superior i should point out why their "theory" fails.

You know, its not superior. its just what happens over time to any given species.

they are slow changes backed by billions of years of fossil evidence in which one fossil out of place would blow the whole theory, yet not one creationist can come up with a precambrian rabbit, nor will they ever.

You add this to DNA evidence and observations made of speciation and there is no debate among the educated about evolution itself.


the only thing left to debate is different types of advancements in anthropology of certain species

 

[outhouse]

creationist have been avoiding and twisting facts for a long time, they know exactly what to debate and what to run from, they mostly run and ignore and find holes in anthropology claiming a ignorant empty victory against evolution in their own little minds. what they do debate will be misinformation of creationist scientist with work never peer reviewed, holes in science and like our friend here, twisting facts to meet their personal agendas.

dont let them get to you, I use this to learn more about certain topics im weak on.

 

[Iti oj]

If man was intelligently designed and not evolved why do we have tail bones? Why do males have nipples? whyn do we have appendixes? why doesnt our back bone curve a way more appropriate for bipedal creatures?????

 

[Iti oj]

You know, its not superior. its just what happens over time to any given species.

they are slow changes backed by billions of years of fossil evidence in which one fossil out of place would blow the whole theory, yet not one creationist can come up with a precambrian rabbit, nor will they ever.

You add this to DNA evidence and observations made of speciation and there is no debate among the educated about evolution itself.


the only thing left to debate is different types of advancements in anthropology of certain species

or over the specifics of mechanics what is and is not a superior gene why and how . How genes influence life up to what level do they control our day to day interactions and behaviors? what conditions speed up and slow down evolution. what conditions are more important to specification etc

 

[Walkntune]

I guess i can buy into evolution as far as things changing but its only from the point of view of things going from order to disorder.This seems to be observed in everyday common knowledge. This seems to ring true intuitively.
I guess I was wanting to know what facts are the scientists standing on that says things are evolving upward and toward order instead of changing from order to disorder.
If someone knows enough about evolution to give me just a few of the facts without having to read and study a bunch of links that would be appreciated.
Like I said I can buy into the idea that everything starts with information in tact and looses information overtime.

 

[outhouse]

enviroment and time have your biggest effect on change.

for homo sapiens, say we moved into space and a enviroment with little gravity with a different diet and a breeding population of say 10,000, changes would happen much faster then a stable enviroment.

look at homo erectus for example, a million years he survived with little changes. were only at 200,000 years now.