The Central Flaw of Evolution

[MENTION=67870]Fallen[/MENTION]
you are creating a straw man. Mutations are clearly present, in living things, but they do NOT provide the engine for increasing complexity, as even your graphic photos illustrate. There is no speciation happening. There are no new traits being 'created'. All you have are aberrations... distortions of the traits, which do not add anything positive to the organism. At best, they might provide some adapting qualities, but they do not create traits, or change the basic genetic structure.

Is cancer a mechanism for evolution? How? Science is not concerned with what can be imagined, though that has been the beginning of many discoveries.. science is concerned with what can be observed, repeated, & proved, by systematic methodology. You cannot use science to prove mutation as a mechanism for increasing complexity, or any changes in the basic genetic structure.. the chromosomes, the gene pool, the mtDNA patterns.. these are hard wired, & are passed down EXACTLY from one generation to the next. Mutations are merely disruptions in a particular gene. They do not add anything, or produce positive traits.

You can post graphic pictures of mutations until the cows come home, but it does not prove anything, except that mutations are horrible, deforming distortions in the genetic structure.

 

I don't know.. it seems like there are an awful lot of people who believe just as i observed in the OP.. i still don't get your outrage over the point, when it seems so plainly obvious.

Evidently the 'hoodwinked' are those who believe the ToE as a fact, not me observing that people already believe this.

 

The Miller-Urey experiment "created" amino acids through chemical evolution.

 

Ample evidence of adaptions and mutations has been provided and scientists have studied and experimented with DNA. The findings have been peer reviewed and established as repeatable and factual knowledge.

The fact that DNA mutates to create adaptions that can either be harmful or beneficial depending upon the environment is indisputable. The birds we see today have adapted, via DNA mutations, from their dinosaur ancestors.

The only thing that approaches the ridiculous is denial of the scientific facts.

 

[MENTION=67870]Fallen[/MENTION]
in your large cut & paste, i could not glean a single evidence of increasing complexity, or changes in the genetic structure of living things. I read a lot of assertions, & lots of ridicule of straw men, but NO facts or evidence of the scientific claim of genetic changes at the structural level. Mutations cannot do this. Shouting & asserting does not make it true. Charts & graphs that show nothing mean nothing. Your argument is that of assertion, with some claimed authority thrown in. You have no evidence.. just spurious claims with no basis. Imagining a 'chart' or series of progressions is not the same as proving it scientifically. HOW?? That is the question. I know the assertion.. the concept.. the indoctrinated belief system, what i do not see, & that has not been produced is the SCIENTIFIC basis for this belief. There is NONE, as far as i can see. Where do you see any evidence for speciation & increasing complexity? Added chromosomes (or subtracted) that produce a different genetic structure? HOW can you go from chimp to man, genetically? From fish to reptile? From reptile to bird? These are all ASSERTED, but there is NO EVIDENCE that this can happen, much less did happen. It is all an imaginary fantasy, with no scientific basis.

 

You seem to not know something. Well, everything actually. We're talking evolution right? These mutations as well as their adaptation add up.

You asked me to show you how mutation could cause complex changes.


Horns, tails, extra libs, extra heads, fused lims, etc. These are all very complex changes.

Let's take that snake for example. If that snake had a mutation and grew 4 legs then would it still be classified as a snake? Would it be a lizard? Would it be something else entirely? What if it survived and passed on this genetic trait and had snake babies who also had 4 legs. Would a snake be called a snake if it walks on 4 legs? Wait, you might be too ignorant to answer this.

 

I'm not asking for 'ample'. Just one would be a good start. Show me. Talk is cheap. Prove this can happen. Show me how you can change the basic genetic structure, & not just move about on the horizontal level. Variation does not prove speciation. The ToE is still a 'false equivalence', attempting to correlate 'micro', horizontal changes in living things to 'macro' vertical changes. But that is the Central Flaw. That does not happen. Gene don't do that $h*t.

 

You are falling back on 19th century 'looks like' taxonomy. The point of this thread is genetics, which trumps any 'looks like' theories of changes in living things. A growth on someone's head is not a 'limb', or a horn, or a new trait. Some aberration in the genes produce these things, but they do NOT make a new species.. or add traits, or create anything positive for the organism. This is just your imagination running wild, attempting to correlate aberrations in living things as 'new' traits, or increasing complexity.

You don't need the ad hominem to demonstrate your lack of understanding of this issue, but it does help.

Prove that 'mutations add up'. You cannot. You do not get cumulative, vertical changes in the genetic structure, but it remains hard wired to produce exactly what its parents produced. The occasional aberration sometimes gets passed on, other times not. But those aberrations in the genetic code, if they are not fatal, do not change the basic structure of the organism, add or subtract chromosome pairs, or increase complexity in any way.

 

Here is some more recent evidence:

 

The fallacy of "irreducible complexity" was completely and utterly debunked during the Dover, PA court trial. The irony was that the lawyers were able to prove how creationism "evolved" into "intelligent design".

 

Prove it Mr. "Strawman"

If a human mutated to have a horn then he became more complex. He was born with something that he didn't have before. These mutations add up over thousands and millions of years. As well as adaptation.

Like I said, you are arguing against an entire scientific field. The basis of all modern biology. The same base that they used to make all of their discoveries and breakthroughs.

You minus well argue that laws of physics which are is are the basis for modern physics arnt real.

 

It's genetics that cause these mutations in the first place. We share our genome with many things.



That just few of many things that we share our DNA with.

"genetics, which trumps any 'looks like' theories"

Was what you said right?

 

You can believe whatever you want. I'm not attacking any sacred cows. I am merely challenging the SCIENTIFIC basis for this theory. I am hardly alone in this critique, & the awareness of the flaws have been growing for decades. But i am not interested in exchanging assertions, which is what this thread is becoming. My premise is intact, as there have been no examples of increasing complexity, or any definition of a mechanism that can overcome the 'high walls' of genetics. Mutation & time cannot do this, scientifically. That is merely an imagined scenario.. a plausible guess for a naturalistic explanation of origins.

No, we do not 'share' our genome with anything. Each living organism has a distinct genetic architecture, made up of genes & chromosomes that makeup the genetic structure. They are not lego blocks, that just add or subtract to form different organisms. You can't just add a few bits to convert a cow to a man, even though their genetic structure is 80% similar.. nor a cat, with the 90%. Those are phony numbers meant to convey a false concept.. that of descendancy. But they only show similarity, they do NOT compel a conclusion of descendancy. You have to prove that with other scientific tests, not just assert it because you believe it.

 

This thread has evolved to reach Danth's Law!

 

You do realize that this is all speculative. It is an imagined scenario, nothing more. There is no proof that reptiles became birds, or that scales turned into feathers. You just imagine it, & declare it as fact. Fossils do not prove descendancy. That is for imaginary sequences & clever charts, which are not accurate, nor are the times right, nor are the fossils in the 'right' order, but that is a side note.

How many times was 'likely' used in that site? Just because someone opines that they believe a certain event happened in such a way, does not compel a SCIENTIFIC conclusion that this is how it happened.

So this is not 'evidence' for anything. It is just someone's belief.. their opinion about some particular birds & reptiles, with NO mechanism defined as to HOW this could happen, much less that it did happen.

 

1. I cannot 'prove' that mutations are the engine for increasing complexity'.. that is your claim, & the burden of proof is on you to prove your assertion. I have millennia of observation that says this does NOT happen.. you must provide the proof that it can & did happen.
2. Growths on an organism are not 'limbs, horns, or tails'. They are growths.. tumors that have NO function of any genetically produced limb. Just because a growth 'looks like!' a horn, does not make it a horn. There is a lot more complexity in the function of a horn than some aberrant growth. Same with a 'leg'. The snake's 'foot' was not a foot, even if it 'looks like a foot!' It was a growth, with no function or genetic purpose of a foot. It likely was fatal to the snake, as it was detrimental to its normal function. That is the problem with the 'looks like' taxonomy i have mentioned many times in this thread. Genetics has opened up a lot more empirical science, so that we aren't stuck with how something 'looks'.
3. I am arguing with you. You may CLAIM universal authority from every scientist, but that is a logical fallacy. You don't know 'every' scientist's belief or opinion in this, & you merely assume universal authority in a group think setting. but you have provided no evidence, & scant little in arguments.. mostly ad hominem & appeals to authority.
4. I'm not addressing laws of physics, or gravity, or the theory of relativity. This is about the ToE. Attempts to correlate it to known facts are more logical fallacies. You must PROVE, scientifically, that something can happen, before it validates a theory.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

 

You are arguing against evolution. In parallel, you are argueing against biology. Mutations play a key role in evolution. Perhaps more so than adaptation.

A mutation is a change in DNA, the hereditary material of life. An organism's DNA affects how it looks, how it behaves, and its physiology. So a change in an organism's DNA can cause changes in all aspects of its life. Mutations are essential to evolution; they are the raw material of genetic variation.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_01

And yes, this is a FACT. Something that you lack.

And what looks like a horn is a horn. If you knew anything about the make up of a horn which is similar to hair, you would know this. The same for other body part.



Those aren't extra legs growing out of him. They merely "looks" like legs. Hahahah

And this isn't an extra arm. It just "looks" like one.



And this is not an extra head. Never mind that they have separate brains. Just like those limbs have bones.



It just "looks" like one

 

You said to show you a study, so I did. In fact I showed several. You are moving the goal posts again.

 

Thats pretty well known one. Thier body evolved to process something that they weren't able to before.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/02/evolution-in-real-time/

Since his Long-Term Experimental Evolution Project began in 1988, the bacteria have doubled in size, begun to mutate more quickly, and become more efficient at using the glucose in the solution where they’re grown.

More strikingly, however, he found that one of the 12 bacterial lines he has maintained has developed into what he believes is a new species, able to use a compound in the solution called citrate — a derivative of citric acid, like that found in some fruit — for food.

One of the central questions Lenski has explored is the tension between evolution’s opposing forces: the random mutations that initiate genetic change and the natural selection that shapes which mutations survive. Those forces, Lenski said, provide evolutionary pressure in different directions.

Random genetic mutation pushes organisms to diversify, while natural selection is a homogenizing force, favoring characteristics that enhance survival under specific conditions.

The experiment has run according to the same protocol since it began. E. coli bacteria are grown in the solution of glucose, a kind of sugar. The glucose is carefully measured so it eventually runs out and creates a period of scarcity and starvation before the bacteria are propagated the next day and transferred into a fresh solution. Every 75 days, roughly 500 generations, a portion of the cultures is frozen.

Though the bacteria were originally genetically identical, they have evolved. Today’s populations grow roughly 80 percent faster than the original lines, a development that Lenski called “a beautiful example of adaptation by natural selection.”

An analysis of the 12 lines after 20,000 generations showed 45 mutations from the ancestral population among the bacteria’s roughly 4,000 genes. Many of the same genes were mutated in all lines, but it was rarely exactly the same mutation within the genes, Lenski said. He equated the bacteria’s evolutionary feats in the glucose-limited “flask world” with those of mountain climbers finding other routes to the peak.

“Populations are climbing Mount Glucose in similar, though not identical, ways,” Lenski said.

After 30,000 generations, researchers noticed something strange. One population had evolved the ability to use a different carbon-based molecule in the solution, called citrate, as a power source.

Researchers wondered whether it was the result of a rare, single mutation, or a more complex change involving a series of mutations over generations. To find out, one of Lenski’s postdocs, Zachary Blount, took some of the frozen cells and grew them in a culture lacking glucose, with citrate as the only potential food source.

After testing 10 trillion ancestral cells from early generations, he got no growth. But when he tested cells from the 20,000th generation on, he began to get results, eventually finding 19 mutants that could use citrate as a power source. The results showed that the citrate-eating mutation was most likely not the result of a single mutation, but one enabled by multiple changes over 20,000 generations.

 

I was tired when I posted this and I made a slight error.

I should have typed that the atomic clock on the shuttle was slightly BEHIND in time compared to the atomic clock left on Earth not ahead.

My bad.

AA

 

The astronauts on the shuttle did not experience the passage of time any different yet LESS TIME PASSAGE occurred for those on the shuttle than those on Earth.

AA

 

Look....I have no issue with a person being religious or not.

But everything in the OP is not only wrong put provably wrong.

Now I know about such things and I can tell you that what is posted specific to Genetics in the OP is total nonsense.

The reality of Evolution is no longer debatable as it has obtained a Mathematical Proof upon a Molecular/Atomic Level.

AA

 

That is no shock given the miniscule difference that was measured.

 

If you increase velocity the time difference increases exponentially.

Years can pass on Earth where only weeks would pass for those in the space craft.

AA