camanintx
Well-Known Member
And what do they propose to replace it with?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What does the fossil record say?
- Thread starter Youtellme
- Start date
outhouse
Atheistically
your not worth a debate
your ignornace is one thing
your lack of intellect to learn or the fiction you spread makes you not debatable at all.
that and evolution is not up for debate.
I will give short opinions, when I see you post something with a topic worth debating I will educate you. So far all you have produced is a large pile of rotting trash.
wilsoncole
Active Member
There was no question. If you insist, then WHO asked it?
I said that mutations do not improve any organism, nor do they create new species. Long-term studies with Drosophilia and E-coli prove that.
Ask Lonnig about that. He will answer you.
Failed at what? Those words are very empty! I think YOU have failed to drum the foolishness of evolution into my mind. You MUST agree.
Not a thoroughly as you have failed to prove that natural selection improves the organism.
Say what you like.
Look - If I do not have children and my brother does, the bloodline does not die out.
Is that not true? If a bullmoose does not get to mate, that is not the end of moose - is it?
See if you can understand that!
(\__/)
( . )
>(^)<
Wilson
wilsoncole
Active Member
wilsoncole
Active Member
You play with loaded dice, so I will not play your game for Scriptural reasons: (1 John 5:19)
But I will supply you with what information I have about scientific dissent so far:
http://www.weloennig.de/literatur1a.html
"The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field’s real problems."
(Dr. Vladimir L. Voeikov, Professor of Bioorganic, Moscow State University; member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences)
" We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Dissent from Darwin
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
I am searching for more.
(\__/)
( ‘ .‘ )
>(^)<
　
Wilson
Last edited:
Nope. They in fact hint in the opposite direction, which has been confirmed thousands of times.
Gunfingers
Happiness Incarnate
No, I play no game at all. I'm simply trying to explain the reality, which is that mutations, natural selection, genetic drift, and symbiosis all cause changes in allele frequencies between generations. This is fact. There is no mechanism to limit the change in allele frequencies between generations. This is fact. Thus those changes in allele frequencies stack atop each other resulting in organisms in one generation being drastically different from organisms several generations prior. Also fact.
The Lenski E. Coli experiment demonstrated this by finding that bacteria develop wholly new and drastically different traits when put in an environment where those traits are beneficial. The fruit fly experiment I linked earlier demonstrated the same thing. In fact it even showed that selective pressure increases the rate of change with food scarcity. Trying to deny "evolution above the species level" by saying that despite all their changes they're still part of the same kingdom (family, in the case of the flies) is patently ridiculous.
camanintx
Well-Known Member
Actually, the studies you are referring to prove exactly the opposite, that mutations can and do create new species. It's your misunderstanding of the term species that prevents you from understanding this. Here's a hint, it's not about the name we give them.
[/quote]Look - If I do not have children and my brother does, the bloodline does not die out.
Is that not true? If a bullmoose does not get to mate, that is not the end of moose - is it?
See if you can understand that![/quote]
No, but none of the 170 or so mutations which you carry will be passed along either. That would make your brother more fit than you. Once again, you are placing more importance on the names we give things than on the things themselves.
David M
Well-Known Member
Your bloodline dies out.
Your brothers (and your parents) continues.
So your own 100+ mutations in your DNA is gone from the population when you die.
This also shows that while you have survived you have not yet reproduced.
Can you understand this?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Source?
wilsoncole
Active Member
Listen - you keep talking about intelligence and education when you show neither.
Well, here is one man who shows both and he disagrees with the whole evolution mess
You will find him # 12 on this list:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
And here is something about him:
"Henry F. Schaefer III or ("He is the author of more than 1150 scientific publications "(see 1 , 2 and 3 ) , including recent studies on DNA and RNA (eg 4 ) . A list of 2007 out in 1155 peer-reviewed publications in detail on ). And of course, a highly qualified Quantum Chemist as Schaefer also fully applicable to the creation of life to say something, even if the research focus is not to be. And on this website scientists is a good number of other critical darwin and ID to find peer-reviewed publication lists can prove long."
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig Literaturverzeichnis
Henry F. Schaefer, III - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
CCC - Henry F. Schaefer Publications
Usually, God only needs one to prove that your deception is not as complete as you suppose.
Remember this man?:
"And Jehovah went on to say to Satan: "Have you set your heart upon my servant Job, that there is no one like him in the earth, a man blameless and upright, fearing God and turning aside from bad?"" (Job 1:8)
And this one nation?"
"He is telling his word to Jacob, His regulations and his judicial decisions to Israel. He has not done that way to any other nation; And as for [his] judicial decisions, they have not known them." (Psalm 147:19-20)
"He is telling his word to Jacob, His regulations and his judicial decisions to Israel. He has not done that way to any other nation; And as for [his] judicial decisions, they have not known them." (Psalm 147:19-20)
And this one family?:
"After that Jehovah said to Noah: "Go, you and all your household, into the ark, because you are the one I have seen to be righteous before me among this generation." (Genesis 7:1)
"After that Jehovah said to Noah: "Go, you and all your household, into the ark, because you are the one I have seen to be righteous before me among this generation." (Genesis 7:1)
Now, I expect you to scream and yell and deny and throw dust in the air. But remember:
History cannot be replaced by stupidity.
History cannot be replaced by stupidity.
(\__/)
( . )
>(^)<
　
Wilson
wilsoncole
Active Member
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
Please - do not denigrate the Discovery Institute to me.
I have nothing to do with them.
They simply published a list of highly educated evolution dissenters. A very long list.
That is all I wanted from them.
(\__/)
( . )
>(^)<
　
Wilson
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Except that's not a list of people who dissent from evolution. I mean, honestly Wilson, look at what it actually says:
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.
Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
See how ambiguous that is? It doesn't say "we doubt evolution theory accounts for complexity", does it? In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find a scientist who wouldn't agree with the notion of regarding any claim with skepticism, or that "careful examination of the evidence" for anything in science shouldn't be "encouraged".
It is nothing more than a list of honest scientists being intentionally misrepresented. What's more, less than 1% of the people who signed this petition were scientists in fields relevant to evolution theory.
Conversely, you completely ignore the List of Steves that was presented earlier, which not only completely dwarfs this petition, but does so solely with the name of PhD holding biologists named Steve. Then there's the "A Scientific Support for Darwinism" petition, which in four days had the names of 7,733 people on it, 4,066 of which were PhDs and 3,385 biologists.
If you want to play a numbers game, Wilson, you are on the wrong side.
Last edited:
They are denigrating themselves, by publishing such a list where maybe more than half of the names aren't even claiming to have biology credentials. That doesn't even qualify as a fallacy of argument from authority, it is plain barrel-scratching.
The list itself claims to come from another source, named Dissent From Darwin
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
Their FAQ is particularly enlightening.
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/faq.php
They are simply not a serious source.
Last edited:
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Correct.
His very own source that he keeps citing agrees with you.
DOES NATURAL SELECTION EXIST AT ALL?
The remarks made so far, however, do not refute the occurrence of natural selection. In spite of the problems just mentioned, it is self-evident that physiologically, anatomically, and ethologically damaged mutants and recombinants (to speak again in the contemporary genetic language of these individuals) will be at a disadvantage in many situations (lame prey in relation to their predators and vice versa). It is only on islands with loss or diminution of stabilizing selection that processes of degeneration may occur quickly (for further discussion of the topic, see Lönnig, 1993, 1998; Kunze et al., 1997). Furthermore, survival of the fittest evidently takes place, for example, in cases of alleles and plasmids with strongly selective advantages, as in the cases of multiple resistance in bacteria and resistance to DDT in many insect species. After pointing out that Darwin knew hardly any cases of natural selection, Mayr asserts (1998, p. 191): "Now, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of well-established proofs, including such well-known instances as insecticide resistance of agricultural pests, antibiotic resistance of bacteria, industrial melanism, the attenuation of the myxomatosis virus in Australia, the sickle-cell gene and other blood genes and malaria, to mention only a few spectacular cases."
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Pft...
Project Steve pwns you list.
It's not even close.
Project Steve | NCSE
Project Steve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
Hardly... First natural selection isn't a survival mechanism, it's a natural phenomenon that describes who sires the next generation of the species.So then - even YOU eliminate natural selection as a survival mechanism.
WA: DO!
(\__/)
( . )
>(^)<
Wilson
Second, natural selection is one of the easiest to document natural phenomena in biology.
wa:do
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
A very long list indeed...
That list represents less than 0.023 percent of the world's scientists.
The list was signed by only about 0.01% of scientists in the relevant fields.
Fewer than 20% of the signers were biologists.
At least seven of the signatories received their advanced degrees from outside the areas of "engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences", as DI puts it.
And finally, the statement that was signed...
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.
..."could easily be agreed to by scientists who have no doubts about evolution itself, but dispute the exclusiveness of "Darwinism," that is, natural selection."
Barbara Forrest and deputy director of the National Center for Science Education Glenn Branch.
You are wise to disassociate yourself from the dishonesty of DI.
Such a list is relevant only in showing the lengths DI will go to to promote it's dishonest approach to science.
Your folly was in using it to attempt to support you failing position.
newhope101
Active Member
I think Wilconsole has illustrated that many knowledgeable people disagree with Toe. The least one can take away from this is that many educated persons have concerns in relation to Toe. Therefore, this illustrates that not only non scientifically educated persons, such as biblical creationists, have a problem with Toe being seen as having sufficient evidence to be taken as factual and irrefutable.
There has been sufficient evidence mulled over here and various threads to demonstrate that shared traits does not necessarily imply ancestry. There is ample evidence to demonstrate that many traits ‘evolved’ independently. Hence I say that despite the best efforts by researchers any classification can be erroneous. This is further supported by the fact that many fossils are reclassified over time. Some of these are minor adjustments others are major. Morphology sometimes is not in line with phylogeny eg humans share 28 morphological traits with an Orang-utan and only a few with a chimp, yet genomically we are more similar to a chimp than a chimp is to an orang, monkey or gorilla.
So now we know that traits may arise individually. There is also research to suggest comparative genomics may not be a good basis for inferring ancestry either due to HGT in prokaryotes. The fossil evidence and genomics work hand in hand to support Toe.
This information may not disprove toe is in action. However I believe it appropriately illustrates that the fossil evidence and so called supportive phologeny may not be as convincing as it appears to be.
Wiki: Horizontal gene transfer is a potential confounding factor in inferring phylogenetic trees based on the sequence of one gene.[28] For example, given two distantly related bacteria that have exchanged a gene a phylogenetic tree including those species will show them to be closely related because that gene is the same even though most other genes are dissimilar. For this reason it is often ideal to use other information to infer robust phylogenies such as the presence or absence of genes or, more commonly, to include as wide a range of genes for phylogenetic analysis as possible.
For example, the most common gene to be used for constructing phylogenetic relationships in prokaryotes is the 16s rRNA gene since its sequences tend to be conserved among members with close phylogenetic distances, but variable enough that differences can be measured. However, in recent years it has also been argued that 16s rRNA genes can also be horizontally transferred. Although this may be infrequent the validity of 16s rRNA-constructed phylogenetic trees must be reevaluated.[citation needed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
Last edited:
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
No.
He has illustrated that less than 0.01% of the worlds biologists fell for DI's disingenuous statement.