Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

[tas8831]

There are four major mistakes or errors of Biological Evolution that could NO longer be defended by any fair and honest proponents of Evolution. These are the basis, the exclusivities, the methodologies and limited view of reality.

The worst is that Evolution had messed reality more. Proponents of ToE are thinking and boasting that they have tons and tons of evidences or tens of tens of thousands of proofs, but Evolution has none at all! Please, be fair and be honest.

See the details!

Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

AFTER you read the details, let us discuss those four one at a time.

Sounds fake.

 

[tas8831]

Proponents of ToE are thinking and boasting that they have tons and tons of evidences or tens of tens of thousands of proofs, but Evolution has none at all! Please, be fair and be honest.

OK -

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum*, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.
​

Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo and Pan lineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "
​

Just tests of a method followed by applications of the method, all pointing to the reality of evolution.

And you have gibberish, eggs, and toilet paper.

 

[tas8831]

by Edgar Alberto Postrado
Founder of the New Intelligent Design

Only the first slide and I know it will be total bunkum

What - you didn't know that 'On the Origin of Species' had the byline of:

by Charles Darwin, Founder of the totally new creation account with an actual proposed mechanism; Debunker of Religious Fanatics; Slayer of Dragons; Winner of Poker; Collector of Pigeons; Wizard of the jaw-harp; Lord of the Dance

 

[tas8831]

There are four major mistakes or errors of Biological Evolution that could NO longer be defended by any fair and honest proponents of Evolution. These are the basis, the exclusivities, the methodologies and limited view of reality.

The worst is that Evolution had messed reality more. Proponents of ToE are thinking and boasting that they have tons and tons of evidences or tens of tens of thousands of proofs, but Evolution has none at all! Please, be fair and be honest.

See the details!

Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

AFTER you read the details, let us discuss those four one at a time.

I discovered too the Principles of Intelligence from egg-and-tissue-paper experiment2. Here they
are:
Principle 1. The Principle of Asymmetry
Principle 2. The Principle of Reinforcement or Support
Principle 3. The Principle of Importance
Principle 4. The Principle of Simultaneity of or in Time
Principle 5. The Principle of Applied Knowledge
Principle 6. The Principle of Success or Independence
Principle 7. The Principle of Existence, Survival, Success, and Life
Principle 8. The Principle of Determinism​

All of that from dropping eggs onto tissue paper.
A true genius.

DJ Trump after snorting Adderall level genius.

 

[tas8831]

Well, the article that I had shared in the OP is the back-up to my other falsification article.

1. Can it outperform the existing theory?
Yes, since the new one has the correct basis.

And that basis is eggs dropped onto toilet paper.

Only a true creationist/ID genius can make such profound extrapolations.

Question - does understanding your genius necessitate the rapid, deep inhalation of toluene?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

WHAT??? If you are not concern of the basis, then, you are not doing real science. All correct scientific explanations have the correct and realistic basis, like Gravity.

Sorry, you are totally wrong...

Nope. Sorry... it is you who is wrong here. What you can observe, actually measure, actually goes on and is present within reality - THAT'S the "basis." You don't need conjecture into any "why" something is the way it is, necessarily, to observe what is going on and do your best to catalog it and model it to the point that you can predict the behavior of reality. AFTER you are done with that for an observable phenomenon, then you might continue to delve further looking for a "why." Or, more appropriately, a more fundamental cause for something to be the way it is. Because at the "end of it all" are things for which there likely is no additional "explanation" forthcoming. That there is anything at all is an extremely good indicator that there is a "lowest level" of activity or reality, beyond which there is little more to discover, and which needs no precursors to be doing what it is doing.

 

[Wu Wei]

Maybe my problem is excessive sobriety?
(Don't tell @Wu Wei. I have an image to maintain.)

Say it ain't so

 

[KWED]

A messed reality is when you mixed both natural and intelligence in one theory.

Evolution does not do that.

I am starting to suspect that you don't know what evolution is or what its theory explains. Don't worry though, you aren't the first and won't be the last.

 

[KWED]

I never understood why South Park is funny.

Well, now you know.

 

[KWED]

Okay okay. I think you have a different understanding of intelligence to what the OP is using it as.

I think that's a given!

 

[URAVIP2ME]

OK -
I forget now who originally posted these on this forum*, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it: The tested methodology: Science 25 October 1991:

Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558
Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice
WR Atchley and WM Fitch
Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.
Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592
Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny
DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.
Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677
Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies
DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.
Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.​

Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo
"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "
Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny
"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."
A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates
"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo and Pan lineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "​

Just tests of a method followed by applications of the method, all pointing to the reality of evolution.
And you have gibberish, eggs, and toilet paper.

Here is a thought to consider because there is nothing in the Bible to say that God did Not use some form of evolution where lower-life forms were involved, however Not where human life is involved.
Adam was formed or fashioned from the already existing dust of the ground. (Gen.2:7)
So, biblically speaking where humankind is concerned there was No evolution involved.

 

[KWED]

I have frequented my fair share of religious debate forums, but I have never come across one before that has such a proliferation of, erm, shall we say "creative thinkers"?

 

[KWED]

I thought the same back in the day.

Then, at college, my friends wanted to go see the movie.
I was aware of south park but never really "watched"-watched it. I zapped through it sometimes, watched a minute or two, didn't get it and moved on.

Then we went to see the movie, mega-high on pot.

I nearly pissed my pants. In fact, I did pis my pants a little bit
I literally had stomach ache from laughing.
That opening song with Terrance and Philip.... my god.

I don't remember ever having laughed as hard as in that theater.
I'm guessing the pot had a hand in it though.

But dude seriously....... I even missed plenty parts of the movie, simply because I was laughing that hard.
It totally blew my mind.

Each episode is a finely-crafted moral fable for a world badly in need of guidance.

 

[KWED]

Thus, you can see that I am a clever and a genius, and correct...

One thing that you will always notice about people who are genuinely clever, let alone geniuses - they never go about claiming to be a clever [sic] or a genius. They let their work speak for them - which is certainly what you have done

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, now you know.

I've been told.
But I don't understand.
It seems to be about profanity & outrageousness.
Although those tools worked wonders in Team
America: World Police. That was very funny.

 

[KWED]

scientist like me.

What is your field? What level is your qualification? Where is it from? What is the nature of your work?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

OK -

I forget now who originally posted these on this forum*, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.
​

Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo and Pan lineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "
​

Just tests of a method followed by applications of the method, all pointing to the reality of evolution.

And you have gibberish, eggs, and toilet paper.

Let us COMPARE Evolution to reality in biological world.

As I had posted in my linked OP, that the biological cell cannot permit the change that will alter the label in classification of living organisms. For example, if the first life is in genus level, then, the biological cell will never change it to family level, since Important Selection will never permit the change. Thus, there is no new species, no new genus, no new family, and no phylogenetic tree and no Evolution. Thus, evolution is wrong and falsified.

Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

What is your field? What level is your qualification? Where is it from? What is the nature of your work?

I discovered intelligence. Read first my basis so that you can know who I am and what capabilities that I can.

Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Here is a thought to consider because there is nothing in the Bible to say that God did Not use some form of evolution where lower-life forms were involved, however Not where human life is involved.
Adam was formed or fashioned from the already existing dust of the ground. (Gen.2:7)
So, biblically speaking where humankind is concerned there was No evolution involved.

If you study the biological cell, the cell cannot permit the change of plan of another level. For example, if the first life, made by God or made by no-God, was in genus level, the biological cell cannot change it to family level since the cell has 7 defense mechanisms and factor of safety.
Thus, no evolution. Read below the details.

Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Nope. Sorry... it is you who is wrong here. What you can observe, actually measure, actually goes on and is present within reality - THAT'S the "basis." You don't need conjecture into any "why" something is the way it is, necessarily, to observe what is going on and do your best to catalog it and model it to the point that you can predict the behavior of reality. AFTER you are done with that for an observable phenomenon, then you might continue to delve further looking for a "why." Or, more appropriately, a more fundamental cause for something to be the way it is. Because at the "end of it all" are things for which there likely is no additional "explanation" forthcoming. That there is anything at all is an extremely good indicator that there is a "lowest level" of activity or reality, beyond which there is little more to discover, and which needs no precursors to be doing what it is doing.

Now, did you observe in reality a non-intelligent guided change or intelligently guided change? Before you answer that, what is the definition and limit of intelligence that you had used? What experiment did you make to test that definition?

Now compare to this: Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?