Evolution is False and Impossible

[Jose Fly]

Sure it isn't the only source? Where else would genetic differences come from if no from copying errors (i.e. mutations)??

Recombination.

 

[themadhair]

Recombination.

I’m confused. If recombination happens without mutations then where does the new genetic information (I don’t know a better phrase so hush for now) come from? You’ll have to explain this one because recombination, in the absence of mutation, should only produce copies of already existing genes (albeit shuffled about).

 

[ragordon168]

way i understand it recombination is taking the parent DNA mixing it up a bit during the production of gametes

mutations slip in due to external mutagenic factors (radiation, chemicals, etc) and usually result in death or serious illness. but sometimes the mutations can be helpful.


the thing about humans changing the enviroment is that if we change it to much then we may not be able to adapt to the mess we make, or some major ecological event could wipe us out.

 

[Jose Fly]

(WARNING: This is very basic and is missing a bit of detail)

Recombination can involve the reshuffling of genes, or other genetic sequences. Different sequences can be put in different orders, which can affect their phenotypic effects; sequences can be moved to areas of different expression, which can affect their phenotypic effects; or different sequences can be combined, producing entirely new alleles (e.g. chimeric genes).

mutations slip in due to external mutagenic factors (radiation, chemicals, etc) and usually result in death or serious illness.

No. Most mutations have no effect on the organism. Some are deleterious, and some are beneficial.

 

[themadhair]

Recombination can involve the reshuffling of genes, or other genetic sequences.

Can I suggest that the 'other genetic sequences' is a mutation? FSM for example can result here but that is a mutation.

 

[Valjean]

Sure it isn't the only source? Where else would genetic differences come from if no from copying errors (i.e. mutations)??

There are a dozen or more well documented mechanisms, but the most basic is simple sexual variation.There are visible differences in a litter of puppies from simple genetic mixing. No copying errors required. Some of the puppies are better adapted to the environment they find themselves in and tend to produce more offspring than their siblings, passing on and increasing the incidence of their advantagous traits.

 

[logician]

Genetic variations constantly come and go, but evolution of new species can be quite a slow and arduos affair, and depends much on the type of organism involved. If there is no reason to change or adapt, the species won't, rather it will keep trudging along until there is a good reason, like a major geological change, or major eco-disaster. Cold-blooded species evolve generally much slower than warm-blooded species, and short-lived species much faster than long-lived species.

 

[themadhair]

There are visible differences in a litter of puppies from simple genetic mixing. No copying errors required.

But where do NEW genetic traits come from if not from mutations? And your example is flawed in that mutations give rise to about 100 genetic differences for each puppy.

 

[Valjean]

Think about selective breeding Mad Hair. The varieties of dogs, chickens, cattle, pigeons, goldfish we see today were largely arrived at by simple sexual selection over a few hundred years. Just think what Nature could achieve in a few million.

 

[themadhair]

Think about selective breeding Mad Hair. The varieties of dogs, chickens, cattle, pigeons, goldfish we see today were largely arrived at by simple sexual selection over a few hundred years. Just think what Nature could achieve in a few million.

Without the addition of mutations I don’t think even nature could manage too much here. The process you are calling ‘sexual selection’ is prevalent with mutations. Evolution is, after all, the varying of allelic frequencies. But the frequency has to go up (via mutation) before it can go down (natural selection).

 

[cottage]

[quote=eselam;1595533]i don't think that god exists, i know he exists thats why i believe in him.

i'm claiming that humans and potatos came from the same ancestors because they have similarities with each other just like apes and humans do.[/quote]

Now hang on a minute? There is something not at all right here. Your creation v evolution arguments appear to be centred exclusively on attacking evolution, rather than showing how creationism is superior.

We can all discuss the merits or otherwise of the Theory of Evolution; some parts are compelling, while other parts speculatively attempt to fill the gaps, but nobody, theist or atheist, was there at the beginning. But where is your argument for creation? If the case you are making for a supernatural creative entity is dependent solely upon finding gaps in scientific study then your argument is also incomplete and wanting! So if you have an argument for creation, let's hear it.
Cottage

 

[Jose Fly]

Can I suggest that the 'other genetic sequences' is a mutation? FSM for example can result here but that is a mutation.

No, I meant that "other genetic sequences" are genetic sequences that aren't necessarily "genes". Non-functional sequences, regulatory sequences, and other types that aren't considered "genes" can be shuffled about and affect phenotype.

Without the addition of mutations I don’t think even nature could manage too much here.

I think this Wiki entry might help you.

 

[themadhair]

I think this Wiki entry might help you.

A little bit further down you find:

Genetic variation comes from random mutations that occur in the genomes of organisms.

 

[Jose Fly]

You're starting to move the goalposts on me a bit here. I clearly stated earlier that mutation is the "ultimate source of variation". You asked "Sure it isn't the only source? Where else would genetic differences come from if no from copying errors (i.e. mutations)??". I answered that recombination can also produce genetic variation.

And that's entirely true. The vast majority of genetic variation comes from mutation, but recombination events can and do produce some genetic variation, such as chimeric genes.

 

[themadhair]

I answered that recombination can also produce genetic variation.

Without mutations I don't think this is the case.

 

[Jose Fly]

Origin of Chimeric Genes Through DNA-Level Recombination

 

[themadhair]

Origin of Chimeric Genes Through DNA-Level Recombination

I can't access the paper itself. Still doubtful that mutations aren't involved in the process.

 

[JMorris]

i don't think that god exists, i know he exists thats why i believe in him.

one dosent need to believe in something that they know exists........ because you Know it exists. if you knew god exists, you'd have no need to believe in him. like, i dont have to believe in cats, because i know they exist. belief does not equal knowledge. the only reason to believe in something is because you dont know.

 

[ellenjanuary]

And you KNOW he exists HOW?? You may believe in this thing all you like but please don't state it as fact. Facts need evidence, where are yours?

You need to educate yourself as to how evolution works. I see the point you are trying to make, but careful as people are laughing at you behind your back.

You might want to try reading, if your brave enough, Victor Stenger's book GOD THE FAILED HYPOTHESIS---How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.

Here, try these o for size!!

1.) if any being is God, he must be a fitting object of worship.
2.) No being could possibly be a fitting object of worship since worship requires the abandonment of one's role as an autonomous moral agent.
3.) Therefore, there cannot be any being who is God.

1.) If God exists, then the attributes of God are consistent with the existence of evil.
2.) The attributes of God are not consistent with the existence of evil.
3.) Therefore, God does not and cannot exist.

1.) if God exists, the he is perfect.
2.) If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3.) If a being is perfect, the whatever he creates must be perfect.
4.) But the universe is not perfect
5.) Therefore, it is impossible for a perfect being to be the creator of the universe.
6.)hence, it is impossible for God to exist.

1.) If God exists, then he is transcendent (i.e. outside space and time)
2.) If God exists, he is omnipotent.
3.) To be transcendent, a being cannot exist anywhere in space.
4.) to be omnipresent, a being must exist everywhere in space.
5.) Hence, it is impossible for a transcendent being to be omnipresent.
6.) Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist.

The logic is frightening is it not!!!

Do you believe in magic? I've always been ignorant like that. People say, how do you know magic exists? And I'm like, Dood! How is anything possible without magic? It's magic! Then, I'd get all American and stuff M A G I C. What's so hard to understand?

Watch closely. I'm about to do some magic with the number four. Should be easy enough to follow. And, like they say about the LHC, the chance that I'm actually about to destroy the universe is vanishingly small, so; no worrys, right?

OK then. Obviously someone needs to go back to school. I never liked logic, because logic just don't work. It's not scientific, if you prefer. So, rather than making a totally unwarranted assumption; I cheat. What trumps logic? Reality. Easy...

Alright, I know... I'm just learning how to actually teach stuff, so that was just was too fast. I didn't waste time studying philosophy, because I know logic doesn't work; but I failed to explain how I could possibly know such a thing doesn't work. I know it's magic, but that don't help you; so I must confess. I studied mathematics. I failed miserably. Couldn't even finish my degree. I was looking ahead ('cause I'm supposedly smart like that), I got my nose into set theory when I was supposedly studying college algebra, and the stupid brain comes up with, "all infinities converge at infinity" and ends my mathematical career with a bunch of religious nonsense.

Do you see how that works, "elegantly," as we like to say in the field? I'm reasonable, I naturally assume you're reasonable. I know science, I naturally assume you know science... OK... you are absolutely correct. I am being a total *******. Allow me to stop congratulating myself long enough to clarify a couple of points that should have been handled...

WAY

THE

....

BACK

K? Those four dots, by the way, stand for a sex act? Whoever took away my god given right to swear at ignorant... alright! Sorry! Did I mention, Not a teacher?... WAY back. How do we KNOW science works? Anybody? PhD perhaps?

We know science works because of the scientific method. This should be taught, pardon the expression, religiously. Observe, hypothesize, experimentation, repetition, theory. Five words. One method, pound it into people's heads until any teacher, any where, at anytime... can ask anybody..

Alright, now we all can agree upon something, can we not? Ellen is preaching. Is it not painfully obvious that ellen is preaching? Can I get an, Amen?

It's magic, baby. I don't know how many PhD's a person has, how many people stand behind a person, how many sources a person quotes, if I'm right and you're wrong - you're wrong. And the Bible tells me so.

Wait a minute, what's the Bible got to do with Gwynnite, set theory, and the utter and total domination of mathematics over all lesser sciences? Gee, I assumed you knew... my bad.

There are but two ways to slay Creationists dead. One. Beat 'em with their own book until they shut the hell up and go back to school or Two. Kill them.


Wait a minute, there ellen, I do not understand that one therefore two. We have laws... yeah, yeah; sure, but what works? Science.

Laws do not work, religion does not work, philosophy does not work, education does not work... man, nothing works but science; but in order for science to work... one must always to remember to use the scientific method... you guys, really. Let me put that in bold. *Fixed. Anybody got a better plan, be sure to let me know; I always keep an open mind.

Until someone tries to tell me what I know is wrong.

What is glaringly wrong with science? Elitism. Knowledge. Learning. Education. These things are actually secondary to the importance of the scientific method. We know this, and merely "knowing" this; we keep making dumb assumptions. Let's get to the magic.

Four words that prove I'm right and you're wrong. Gwyneth Paltrow is god. I have no idea what you're doing in you're own little worlds, but if you were doing the right thing, I would not have to be here teaching stuff people should know, like science. Logic=/=reality. I thought that was one of those "first principle" type thingys you people are so proud of?

Oh, dang... let the cat out of the bag. I came here thinking, how can pride be a sin? The only known evidence for pride being a sin is found in the Bible. I've always believed in magic, magic works. I wanna believe in science, but the scientists are making it extraordinarily difficult. Lemme slay all of the demons in this thread with a bit of Scripture, don't mind, do ya?

He multiplieth words without knowledge.

Only part of the Bible I needed to understand was the Book of Job. Anybody who thinks otherwise is going to get themselves hurt. I've used the scientific method. Anybody who thinks otherwise is going to get themselves hurt. All these words I've used -I have used only to teach -the one-two punch against Creationism - and to quote a single line of scripture.

Wanna get lippy with a god that does not exist? I got one for you all-

Respect.