Do you believe in evolution?

[invest07]

Arm Chair General
Army,
Are you out there?
It's the sophistry king calling your bluff.
How was my analysis of speciation probability deceptive?

 

[invest07]

Coyote,
It seems to me you have a distorted view of the speciation event.
You are belaboring under the illusion that speciation also requires millions of years. The speciation event must occur within one generation or it does not occur.
Think this through: If the male is the first to mutate and he is infertile with other females, this infertility will die when the individual dies unless a compatible female mates with him within his lifetime. There is no such thing as a species undergoing a gradual change to a new species. They either are a separate species or they are not.
There MUST be one sexually comptible male and one sexually compatible females alive at the same time and they must mate each other or there is no generation 2 of the mutants. There is no other way.
I understand the evolution crap you believe requires millions of years for the new species to develop but the speciation event itself MUST occur within one generation for a new species to be established. If there is no second generation, there is no gene pool for natural selection and genetic drift to work.
My example was of a fish. Your example was of a land species that became isloated from others. So how does a population of fish become isolated in the ocean? How does a population of birds become isloated? And is isolation necessary for macroevolution speciation to work? Did the whales also become isolated? And who did they eveolve from? (I doubt even you can believe it was the Pakistan coyote).
Many of the events which "scientists" are proclaiming as spesciation may not be macroeveolution at all. Until the genome of each species has been mapped and the differences specifically identified, there is no certainty that speciation has occurred.
The Long Beach worms are interesting but hardly proof of speciation. One group of worms was removed to another location and grew in different soil and climate conditions. And they didn't want to mate with their Long Beach parents when reintroduced. My questions is, was this pattern repeated for several generations. Or did the removed individuals adapt, through micrevolution, to the original soil and climate and resume mating?
One of the problems with studies like this is that only a portion of the results may be reported. If the data jives with the pre-ordained conclusion, it is reported. If it doesn't support the conculsion, it is dismissed as irrelevant and not reported.
Careers in academia are not grown by rehashing old ground. They are grown by bold new "discoveries", wheter or not they are really new or not.
Most of these alleged speciation events are a result of premature and wishful speculation.

 

[invest07]

DrWho
If there were a missing limk, we would have heard it shouted from every rooftop in academia. And Coyote would be howling at the moon every night, all night.
The embarassing fact for evolutionists is that the number of transitional fossils is miniscule and most of those are seriously disputed.
This is a strong argument against evolution because, according to evolutionary theory, every species is in prepetual transition to a new species. And this means that EVERY fossil should exhibit some transitional characteristics. This means that some form of transition, however small, should be visible in present day humans. I don't see any new species arising out of our present 6 billion human population. And neither do any scientists or they would let you know.
And as to whales, the evolutionists are now saying that a land animal resembling a coyote which was found in Pakistan is the parent of our whales.
Ask yourself how many mutations does it take to turn a coyote into a whale? A reasonable answer would be in the millions or billions. And whales have only been around for about 65 million years. So our parent coyote (which has been dated to 50 Millions years ago) would have to undergo millions of mutations within a very short time to produce a whale. And the first whale can't produce a 2cd generation unless there is a sexually compatible female. So evolution would have had to produce both a male and female whale who were alive at the same time, for them to mate. Millions and billions of mutations for both the male and female within a very short period of time.
The laws of probability do not support evolution. And many within the scientific community know this and are becoming more and more vocal in their dispute against evolution dogma.
Type this into any search engine and let me know what you think:
"Dissent from Darwin" and "Doctors dissenting Darwin"

 

[invest07]

DrWho
A lot of evolutionists point to archaeopteryx as a transition. There are just as many who dispute this. Even the experts don't agree on this one. And the vast majority of fossils which are claimed to respresent transitions are only one bone or a fragment.
Most of these "transition" fossils are simply wishful speculation on the part of the discoverers.

 

[Sadistic Savior]

The embarassing fact for evolutionists is that the number of transitional fossils is miniscule and most of those are seriously disputed.

Which ones are disputed?

The fact is that all species are transitional species...all "beginning" and "end" points for a species are purely arbitrary.

This is a strong argument against evolution because, according to evolutionary theory, every species is in prepetual transition to a new species.

Exactly. So how do we disprove your argument?

And this means that EVERY fossil should exhibit some transitional characteristics.

Such as what? Like a mammal that lays eggs? A Dinosaur that has feathers? A squirrel that flys?

This means that some form of transition, however small, should be visible in present day humans.

Not necessarily. Evolutionary progression is driven by mutation, and shaped by environment. That is why it is sporadic...because mutation itself is sporadic.

I don't see any new species arising out of our present 6 billion human population.

Humans have not been around for 6 billion years. As far as I know, no one has claimed that.

And as to whales, the evolutionists are now saying that a land animal resembling a coyote which was found in Pakistan is the parent of our whales. Ask yourself how many mutations does it take to turn a coyote into a whale?

Probably a lot. But it wouldnt have happened overnight.

A reasonable answer would be in the millions or billions.

That is not a reasonable answer IMO. What do you base that assumption on?

And whales have only been around for about 65 million years.

Heh..."only".

And the first whale can't produce a 2cd generation unless there is a sexually compatible female.

Since the process is gradual, the mutatiojns would have plenty of time to spread throughout the population.

Another fallicy many anti-evolutionists like to cling to is the assumption that evolution is sequential; that is, that mutations must happen one at a time, one before the other.

The fossil record seems to indicate that this is not the case. That many traits can converge simultaneously. As an example, the current theory is that hollow bones and feather developed in the dinosaurs that eventually became birds separately, and for diffeent reasons. When these traits converged, the animals gained the capability of flight.

The laws of probability do not support evolution.

You have no way of knowing that since we cannot test it.

I have gone over this and more in the thread in the debate forum.

 

[Sadistic Savior]

A lot of evolutionists point to archaeopteryx as a transition. There are just as many who dispute this. Even the experts don't agree on this one.

Can you give me their specific arguments?

(and please, no cut and paste...if you dont even know their arguments, how can you expect me to believe them?)

 

[invest07]

Sadistic
"The embarassing fact for evolutionists is that the number of transitional fossils is miniscule and most of those are seriously disputed.

Which ones are disputed?"

THE LACK OF TRANSITIONAL FORMS
“Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them” David B. Kitts of the School of Geology and Geophysics at the University of Oklahoma.

David Raup, curator of geology at the museum holding the world's largest fossil collection (the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago):
"[Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would .... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ... [W]e have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."
Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (January 1979): 22-23, 24-25.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study “ and "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."
Stephen Jay Gould. "The Return of Hopeful Monsters“ 1977.:

"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee

MacroEvolution requires one species to evolve from a prior species and is an ongoing process. From the beginning of biological life to the present, MacroE must have been in process then and must be in process today. I never said humans have been around 6 billion years. I said there are now 6 billions humans alive today. The more births there are the greater the probability of a mutation occurring. The estimated population of humans (or ape-like subhumans) most likely never exceeded 100,000 at any one time, from the Pleistocene Epoch rearward. So the annual number of birth events was far less in the past than today. Fewer births means less chance for mutations.

The frequency of mutation, as measured by geneticists, is 1 mutation out of 10,000,000 birth events. The world’s annual birth rate of humans is about 1,000,000 per day. This means that there should be some type of human mutation somewhere in the world every 10 days. If MacroE is a reality, shouldn’t there be at least one human, somewhere in today’s world, who demonstrates some form of transition to Human 2.0?

Mutations are random but they are predictable, given large numbers, such as 6 billion humans. If the numbers can be measure, the odds can be calculated.

ARCHAEOPTYRX DISSENT - THIS WAS CLEARLY A FLYING BIRD
“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.” Dr. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds and evolutionist.

“Archaeopteryx is a member of that group (protobirds), it lived at the Jurassic/Cretaceous boundary, at least 50 million years before the later members of the group. So how could it be descended from dinosaurs that lived after it? The answer is self-obvious: It couldn't. Scott Goodman

“The fact that Archae had teeth is irrelevant. A number of extinct birds possessed teeth, while at the same time many reptiles of today do not have teeth. This is true of other vertebrates. Some fish have teeth, and some do not. Some amphibians have teeth, and some do not. Most mammals have teeth, but some do not. Some people have teeth, and some do not (forgive me ... I felt some comic relief was needed). Furthermore, Archae did not have reptile-like teeth, but teeth that were distinctively bird-like, similar to teeth found in a number of other fossil birds. Its teeth were unserrated with constricted bases and expanded roots, while theropod dinosaurs, from which it supposedly evolved from, had serrated teeth with straight roots. They also had different methods of tooth implantation and replacement. Martin, Stewart, and Whetstone point out some of these facts in their book, The Auk (p.86). “Jordan Neidnagel.

"The most striking feature of Archaeopteryx is its well-developed feathered wings. These wings are not significantly different in size and shape from those of modern birds such as magpies or coucals, and they give every indication that Archaeopteryx was a flying bird. The feathers also appear to be strong evidence of flight ability . . . . In Archaeopteryx the feathers are remarkably similar to those of modern birds. They have a stiffened central shaft to transmit aerodynamic forces generated over the feather vanes to the body, and this would not be expected if the feathers had no mechanical function. More significantly, the feather shaft is set asymmetrically against the vanes of the feather. This permits the feather to distort optimally to compensate for bending in flight due to aerodynamic loads, and is important in both gliding and flapping flight. . . vane asymmetry is characteristic of modern flying birds, but the feathers of most modern flightless birds are symmetrical."
Raynor, Biomechanics in Evolution (p. 194)

Aracheaoptyrx was a flying bird and not an earthbound dino/bird. If it was well suited for flying it most likely did fly and fly well. It was not a 2 legged dinosaur.

"The laws of probability do not support evolution. "

You have no way of knowing that since we cannot test it.

PROBABILITIES CAN AND HAVE BEEN COMPUTED AND TESTED
“DNA encodes the pattern of about 250 amino acids that make up a protein. An estimate cited by Berlinksi puts the number of viable proteins at ten to the fiftieth power-the raw material of all life that has ever existed. Yet the number of "all possible proteins of a fixed length (250 [amino acid] residues, recall) is computed by multiplying twenty by itself 250 times (twenty to the 250th power)."

Geneticists have calculated the frequency of mutation, which are the initiating event for EVERY evolutionary event. The probability of a mutation positively affecting an individual has been measured. The number of base pairs of DNA have been counted for several species and the probability of a replication error occurring at any location is a relatively simple calculation.

The discovery of the DNA molecule in the 1940’s brought an interesting change in evolutionary education. Study of probability was eliminated or deemphasized from the curriculum. The reason is simple: Even the simplest organism has millions of base pairs on its DNA and this huge number raised serious doubts about the veracity of undirected evolution. As the numbers of base pairs have been counted, calculation of more probabilities for more species becomes possible. And if you will, without prior bias or preconception, calculate a few probabilities yourself you will find out why this discipline disappeared from evolutionary curriculum. The odds are so slim as to be laughable. (One of the dirty little secrets of Evolution). Before you try to calculate the odds of any evolutionary event occurring, you should review scientific notation because the numbers are so small that is the only way you can handle them.

It should be noted that mathematics is a precise discipline. So long as the input is correct and the calculation is error free, the answer will be precise. Science does not deal is such absolutes. The physical world is explained by theories which are ALWAYS subject to change. What is accepted as scientifically defensible is perpetually in flux. Science is imprecise by it’s very nature. The mathematics of probability are well known and, as far as I know, the basic laws of probability have never been reasonably disputed. Therefore, a mathematical calculation MUST be more accurate than any scientific assertion, so long as the inputs are correct.

If evolution were a horse, no way you’d bet money on it. Don’t believe me on this. Calculate a few evolutionary probabilities for yourself. The problem is that evolutionists do not like the results of probability tests.

“The fact is that all species are transitional species...all "beginning" and "end" points for a species are purely arbitrary.”

According to evolutionary theory this is a true statement. This means that there should be some signs of transition present in most every fossil. Not necessarily a big item but it may be a small change which is readily visible to the trained eye. And it should be visible in most fossils. A paw doesn’t change to a flipper in one step. It occurs one bone at a time.
Since most fossils (the actual count is something like 1 out of 100,000 or so) don’t show transitional signs, you have to ask yourself “Why don’t they?” Could it be that there is no such thing as interspecies transition?

 

[invest07]

Sadistic
"A reasonable answer would be in the millions or billions."

That is not a reasonable answer IMO. What do you base that assumption on?

Common sense. Look at the morphology of a coyote and compare it to a whale. They are a long way apart. How many mutations does it take to turn a paw into a flipper? Think about the number of bones and muscles and skin that must be reshaped. Then remember that the evolution you believe is theorized to happen one small change at a time. The paw alone must require hundreds or even thousands of mutations to develop as a flipper. Then think about taking oxygen from air vs. taking oxygen from water. One small step at a time is a bunch of steps. And remember in the case of whales, they appeared rather suddenly on the geological scale (about 65 millions years ago). The Pakistan coyote, who is supposed to be their parent, has been dated at 50 million years. So how is the coyote the parent of a creature which appeared 15 million years earlier? The answer is obvious and to say that whales evolved from any land animal is equally ludicrous. Since whales appeared rather suddenly, where are the fossil for the millions of years prior? Didn’t the whale have to evolve from a prior species? So when early whale fossils are dated, where are the parent species?

"And the first whale can't produce a 2cd generation unless there is a sexually compatible female. "

“Since the process is gradual, the mutatiojns would have plenty of time to spread throughout the population.”

A new species, by definition, is infertile with the parent species. There are not millions of years for a new species to evolve. The speciation event MUST occur within one generation or it does not occur. Think this through carefully. Assume the male is the first to mutate. If he is to be the father of a new species he will be infertile with his parents and with all other individuals in his population. Unless a sexually compatible female mates with him, the mutation will die when the individual dies. For speciation to occur, there MUST be a sexually compatible female and male alive in the same generation and they MUST mate. Since infertility with the parent is a requirement for speciation, the male and female MUST BOTH have compatible mutations within the same generation.

“Another fallicy many anti-evolutionists like to cling to is the assumption that evolution is sequential; that is, that mutations must happen one at a time, one before the other.”

I don’t think evolutionary theory requires every evolutionary change to be sequential but some must be. A claw must follow the foot. A hand does not have to follow the foot.

While it is not numerically impossible for more than one mutation to occur during one birth, the odds are dramatically against this. The odds of a mutation occurring are 1 in 10,000,000 birth events so the odds of 2 mutations occurring during one birth event are 10,000,000 x 10,000,000 or 1 out of 100,000,000,000,000. If I remember math correctly, that is one chance out of 100 trillion. In practicality, mutations do indeed occur one at a time.

More than one mutation at once would be highly improbable.

 

[invest07]

Let me add one correction to the 2 prior posts. The odds of any mutation (positive or negative) occurring are 1 in 10,000 birth events. The odds of a positive (beneficial to the survival of the individual) mutation is much slimmer, 1 in 10,000,000. The odds I quoted in the prior posts were the odds of a positive mutation occurring and not of any mutation.

 

[Coyote]

Evolution works primarily through population genetics - where over time gradual change occurs within a population until the cumulative effect is different enough so that population can no longer mate with it's founder population.

There is no need for a mutation drastic enough to be a seperate species to have to find that individual it can mate with. That's where your whole theory falls apart.

 

[PLC1]

Here is a transition species.

The title of this thread is highly misleading. Do you believe in evolution? Evolution is not a religion. It is a scientific theory that has grown out of observation and experimentation. The germ theory of disease is another scientific theory, based on observation and experimentation. The real question is, do you believe in reason and fact? Do you understand the scientific process? If so, then there is no question about it. Evolution is how life came about on Earth, and germs make us sick.

 

[invest07]

PLC1
So evolution, which is a theory, is really a fact?
There is a difference between theories and facts.
Theories are always on the table for revision. That is one of the differences between theory and fact.
Evolution is a theory and can't be positively proven (or disproven).
Evolution is either a theory or it is a fact. It cannot be both, by definition. It is either one or the other.
So which is it?

 

[invest07]

Coyote
No argument here on the first part of your statement. According to evolutionary theory everything requires a gradual change over eons of time. (Remember, if you run out of science there is always millions of years to hide behind)

But the initiating event for any evolutionary event is one mutation. The gene must be present in the population before natural selection and genetic drift can work.

It may be that changes in a species gradually lay the groundwork for some changes but the speciation event itself MUST occur within one generation or it does not occur.
If you will think this through, you will realize this is undeniable. There MUST be:

1. a male and female who are fertile with each other and infertile with the remaining population
2. they must be alive at the same time
3. they must successfully mate

If number 1, 2 and 3 above don't occur within the same generation, there is no speciation.
So if the genetic changes happen slowly, how does the female reproductive system change in precise compatibilty with the male? Female and male systems work in radically different ways.

The speciation event MUST occur within one generation or it does not occur.

Even the simplest organism, one celled bacterias, have huge DNA strands. EColi has 4 milliuon base pairs and relies on the production of over 1000 enzymes. EColi is more complicated, by a factor of several hundred times, than the Windows OS.

Living organisms are composed of several highly complex sytems that fuction semi-independently of each other but also function together as a sytem.

Ask Bill Gates how much focused energy was necessary to produce Windows, which is estimated to have 30-40 million lines of code. And then remember that EColi is many thimes more complicated that anything NASA or Bill Gates or Einstein ever envisioned. Complex, interelated systems don't happen by mistake, even over millions of years.

To me it is beyond reason to think anyhting as complicated as life is a gigantic mistake (which is what a mutation is). And evolution is nothing more than a series of mistakes. Millions and billions of sequential mistakes.

Coyote, do you really believe all this happens by random mistakes? Screw the science for a minute and think about this logically and rationally. Doesn't something else have to be at work here?

 

[Coyote]

Coyote
No argument here on the first part of your statement. According to evolutionary theory everything requires a gradual change over eons of time. (Remember, if you run out of science there is always millions of years to hide behind)

But the initiating event for any evolutionary event is one mutation. The gene must be present in the population before natural selection and genetic drift can work.

It may be that changes in a species gradually lay the groundwork for speciation but the speciation event itself MUST occur within one generation or it does not occur.

It's one mutation too many -not one mutation. In other words it's one mutation that is minor within the isolated population over all in that that population can still interbreed - but added to all the other gradual changes, it tips the balance enough that it changes that particular population so it can no longer breed with the founder population. It's not an individual - it's a population.

If you will think this through, you will realize this is undeniable. There MUST be:

1. a male and female who are fertile with each other and infertile with the remaining population
2. they must be alive at the same time
3. they must successfully mate

If number 1, 2 and 3 above don't occur within the same generation, there is no speciation.
So if the genetic changes happen slowly, how does the female reproductive system change in precise compatibilty with the male? Female and male systems work in radically different ways.

I don't think you understand population genetics - an entire sub-population changes gradually - all the individuals, until the accumulative effect of gradual change is enough to seperate it from the founder species and speciation occurs.

Even the simplest organism, one celled bacterias, have huge DNA strands. EColi has 4 milliuon base pairs and relies on the production of over 1000 enzymes. EColi is more complicated, by a factor of several hundred times, than the Windows OS.

Coyote, do you really believe all this happens by random mistakes? Living organisms are composed of several highly complex sytems that fuction semi-independently of each other but also function together as a sytem.

There are several arguments against this. First - there is no reason to assume that the life around today is comparable in complexity to the earliest life. In all likelyhood, all of the simplest and earliest life would almost certainly be extinct by now, outcompeted by more complex forms. In fact, I seem to remember something that certain cellular structures are thought to be remnants of some of the earliest forms of life that became incorporated into the cell. I'll have to look that up to be sure.

Second, complex systems such as "self-replicators" can in reality be incredibly simple. For example a strand of six DNA nucleotides. This can be created via prebiotic chemistry sets the stage for evolution to begin, whether or not you call the molecules "life."

Ask Bill Gates how much focused energy was necessary to produce Windows, which is estimated to have 30-40 million lines of code. And then remeber that EColi is many thimes more complicated that anything NASA or Bill Gates or Einstein ever envisioned.

To me it is beyond reason think life is a gignatic mistake (which is what a mutation is).

Coyote, do you really believe all this happens by random mistakes?

Well, now you're asking for "belief" - that's a whole 'nother ballpark. Just because something is complex doesn't mean it can't have evolved naturally.

Why would you say a mutation is a "gigantic mistake"? If it's an improvement - it isn't. It's natures way (or God's way if you wish) of introducing innovation.

 

[vyo476]

PLC1
So evolution, which is a theory, is really a fact?
There is a difference between theories and facts.
Theories are always on the table for revision. That is one of the differences between theory and fact.
Evolution is a theory and can't be positively proven (or disproven).
Evolution is either a theory or it is a fact. It cannot be both, by definition. It is either one or the other.
So which is it?

It's a theory, but as a scientific theory, the present state of which has been formulated over the course of 150 years, it is based on observations of facts. That was PLC1's point, unless I'm much mistaken.