The Central Flaw of Evolution

They could have measured that on various space probes.

 

What are these "high walls" of genetics of which you speak?

 

Don't worry, he'll just demand that you do his pseudoscience research for him. Just watch. He's on top of it.

* I suspect "high walls of genetics" is his clever attempt to insert Baraminology into the discussion without admitting it.

 

Me either.. it is a non factor in this discussion.

False. This is just your dogmatic assertion, with no evidence. I have raised a challenge, which has been met with dogmatic assertions, ridicule, ad hominem, & appeals to authority, but no evidence.

good example of argument by authority. Prove it. Show me ONE instance of increasing complexity in the genetic code, or changes from one genetic makeup to another.

This is just your opinion, with nothing but dogmatic assertion to back it up. You have no empirical proof of the grand claims you make, & try to 'declare' science by decree. There is no 'reality' of evolution. It is a theory at best, & a weak one, with no scientific basis. All the 'evidence' for evolution is conjecture & extrapolation, with no tests or experimentation to prove the premise.

 

Mock & heckle away.. you know exactly what i mean, & i have repeated the same arguments many times in this thread. I have defined the problem in many ways, with different illustrations, examples, & analogies. The issue is clear, even if you try to muddy it, or deflect with ridicule. Let me know if you want to employ truth or reason in any of your arguments.

 

Since you are looking for additional complexity (like growing an extra pair of arms or something) I assume you already acknowledge that speciation has been observed within the tiny window of opportunity we have had since Darwin.
Reference: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

What reason would you have for ignoring the example of the platypus?
Reference: http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/bizarre-dna-of-platypus-tells-a-story-about-us/
There are genes for egg laying, evidence of the animal’s reptilian roots. Genes for making milk, which the platypus does in mammalian style despite not having nipples. Genes for making snake venom, which the animal stores in its legs. And there are five times more sex-determining chromosomes than scientists know what to do with.

The genetic code of the platypus is clear evidence that its ancestors were reptilian but it was one of the branches leading in the direction of mammalian traits. What is your evidence that this does not represent evolution?

 

I am not speculating anything; academia is tasked with discovering Perfect Knowledge of any given Thing.

If dinosaurs had not become extinct, it is possible mammals may not have evolved into humans.

 

You have not defined anything that prevents or limits evolution. You admit that mutations happens, and you don't dispute that most of these will get passed down to their offspring, who will then add more mutations. When you do the math, it would take between 4.6 and 6.2 million years to account for the genetic differences that separate humans from chimpanzees. When you compare this to the morphological differences we see in the fossil record, you have two separate lines of evidence which agree. You are asserting that evolution cannot happen, so it is up to you to produce a mechanism that prevents this.

 

Have you ever stopped to wonder why you need to repeat your assertions so often?

Have you ever stopped to contemplate the replies to you endlessly doing so?

Have you even been able to comprehend what is given to you in rebuttal?


From what I can see....the answers are all in the negative.

 

'speciation' can be a fuzzy method to confuse, & it is more of a definitional problem. Increasing complexity, or changes in the basic genetic structure, are not observed in the 'speciation' definitions given. Reproductive isolation is often used to define 'speciation', but there is not a major change in the basic structure.. the chromosome count usually remains the same. The taxonomy is similar. It is a condition of some child species in a family tree that they cannot reproduce with other distant child species.

We can observe this happening, & can trace descendancy through mtDNA & other more obvious common ancestry evidence, like the ability to interbreed 'some', like with the 'mules' of some progeny. But that does not compel a conclusion that canids became felids, or that reptiles evolved into birds. That is an extrapolative leap, with no evidence.

What reason do you have for phrasing this 'question' in an accusatory way? I have ignored nothing. This is the first time you have even mentioned platypus, so how did i 'ignore' it? These kinds of lame tactics are tiresome, & i become bored of constantly pointing it out. At some point, i will cease to reply, if this is all i get here. Maybe that is the goal. You don't want open communication, & the expression of alternate views, but only an echo chamber for your groupthink loyalties. If you want to ask my opinion or view about platypus, do it. No snark is needed.

The platypus fits in the 'model' of evolution, if you assume evolution, first. That is true with fossils, family trees, & a great many other 'conclusions' POST assumption of evolution. But the platypus does not compel a conclusion of evolution. There are a great many other explanations, that can have equal credence. Take vestigial organs, for example. Long heralded as 'proof' of evolution, most biologists have backed down from that argument. Things once thought to be 'useless appendages' or leftovers from evolution are now recognized as having purpose. Man's ignorance cannot conclude irrelevance of something.

The assumption is that some organs are leftovers from an earlier condition, now no longer needed. But this is flawed in many ways.
1. many vestigial organs have been discovered to be important, currently, in the biology. the appendix & tonsils are examples. Once thought to be useless appendages, they have been discovered to be still useful & functional.
2. 'Looks like' judgements are made, without any basis.
3. Assumptions of evolution are made to prove vestigiality.. IOW, circular reasoning. 'Since we are evolving, this leftover appendage proves we are evolving.'
from an evolutionist on wiki:
In 1893, Robert Wiedersheim published The Structure of Man, a book on human anatomy and its relevance to man's evolutionary history. This book contained a list of 86 human organs that he considered vestigial, or as Wiedersheim himself explained: "Organs having become wholly or in part functionless, some appearing in the Embryo alone, others present during Life constantly or inconstantly. For the greater part Organs which may be rightly termed Vestigial."[3] His list of supposedly vestigial organs included many of the examples on this page as well as others then mistakenly believed to be purely vestigial, such as the pineal gland, the thymus gland, and the pituitary gland. Some of these organs that had lost their obvious, original functions later turned out to have retained functions that had gone unrecognized before the discovery of hormones or many of the functions and tissues of the immune system'

this is the problem of basing the conclusion on the assumptions of the premise. If you ASSUME evolution, then vestigial organs is a given.. expected as we are allegedly constantly evolving into something else, creating new traits & organs, & leaving past remnants behind. But if you do NOT assume evolution, we merely have organs that we are unsure of their function, & which have come to light over the centuries. Few (if any) organs are assumed to be vestigial anymore. Many biologists & doctors don't think there are ANY useless organs in humans. They all have a function, even if it is minor.

The same is true with the platypus, or any other 'mysterious' living thing, of which there are many. Just because we do not understand the function of a trait, does not mean it has no function, or it is a leftover from some earlier apparition.

Clear as mud. You can see what you want to see, & if your 'vision' compels you to believe something, that is up to you. But there is nothing in the genetic code, or the life of the platypus that compels such a conclusion. That is mere extrapolation based on your belief that this CAN happen, not any evidence that it DID happen.

 

You want me to 'disprove' your assumption? I only have millennia of observation, where NOTHING of this sort has been observed. There have been NO instances of changes in the basic genetic structure, or increasing complexity, or adding new traits into an organism. Those are asserted, but none are observed. It is up to you to demonstrate HOW this could even happen, not for me to disprove it. You are the one making the wild claims. I am merely questioning your assumptions.

 

So....it seems the issue here goes beyond simple ignorance of details and bleeds into fundamental inability to grasp concept. There is very good reason we do not notice these changes happening in real time or even millinnia....IT TAKES LONGER THAN THAT. We CAN observe change taking place on a real time scale with simple organisms and thus need to adapt our vaccines as needed when they do. By the way, had you bothered to "Observe" what has been occurring over the aforementioned millennia you might have noted minor changes that lead to the big ones over longer periods of time.

Darwins finches come to mind.

 

I would say academia is tasked with imparting known truth to subsequent generations. Any discoveries they make along the way adds to the knowledge base, but that is not their primary task.
The 2nd part is non sequitur. It is speculation based on the assumption of evolution, which does not even prove the speculation. There is nothing empirical about this statement.. it is all belief.

And, an addition to the concept of 'looks like' taxonomy, vestigial organs, & the function of mysterious traits:

Evolutionary zoologist S. R. Scadding (University of Guelph) has stated (175f.):
"The 'vestigial organ' argument uses as a premise the assertion that the organ in question has no function. There is no way however, in which this negative assertion can be arrived at scientifically. That is, one can not prove that something does not exist (in this case a certain function), since of course if it does not exist one cannot observe it, and therefore one can say nothing about it scientifically. The best we can do is to state that despite diligent effort, no function was discovered for a given organ. However it may be that some future investigator will the discover the function. Consequently, the vestigial organ argument has as a premise, either a statement of ignorance (I couldn't identify the function), or a scientifically invalid claim (it does not have a function). Such an argument, from ignorance, or from negative results, is not valid scientifically, and has no place in observational or experimental science.

"Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution."

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u...l organs' provide evidence for evolution..pdf

 

I believe the Eureka of Perfect Knowledge is a task for Academia in California, merely to be faithful to our State Motto.

Chemical evolution asserts the possibility of abiogenesis.

Time scale accounts for the rest.

AnCap theory postulates that given sufficient, "market friendliness" of conditions, a transaction will occur at some point.

And, for comparison and contrast, here is a theorem that supports this line of reasoning:

 

So if you set the bar high enough (show me a reptile evolving into a bird in one step) you might win a debate but it is a false victory. You are being unrealistic to expect dramatic evolutionary changes in the few years humans have been observing.

Why did I assume you had ignored the platypus? I assumed you had some knowledge that the platypus exists and yet you assume significant branches from one family to another are not possible. You claim that people force-fit "mysterious" creatures like the platypus into evolutionary theory to protect the theory but it was actually the other way around. People observed similarities and differences in external traits and speculated that they might be related in a "family tree" structure. Now that scientists are decoding the genome, we realize they were RIGHT! That speculation was confirmed when they found bits of DNA inherited from earlier forms. This becomes a problem for people who want to believe that every species was created in one moment a few thousand years ago (just as the telescope became a problem for the Catholic church who wanted to believe that the sun circled the earth).

I didn't mention vestigial organs but now that you bring it up, what is your explanation for vestigial organs that have a function but clearly cannot satisfy that function? For example, the vomeronasal organ has a function (for lower animals) but in order to do its job, it has to convey some signals through nerves to the brain... but in the human there are no nerves to do that job. The logical conclusion is that it is a vestigial organ we inherited from a more primitive species who really needed it. The illogical conclusion is that we were intentionally built a few thousand years ago with this bit of useless structure.

 

Naw, that motto is for gold.. the greed & lust for power, control, & wealth. You should know that, if you are in california.

It does not. This is merely a dogmatic assertion. We have NO scientific possibility of abiogenesis. That is a conjecture.. an imagined 'possibility' with no scientific basis. What process can do it? We can't even create life in the perfect conditions of a laboratory! HOW could it happen naturally? There is NO mechanism, no process, & no way to predict HOW life began, so any 'theory' of abiogenesis is dead before it even begins. You would have to demonstrate it to be possible, before you can prove the hypothesis. There have been thousands, if not millions, of attempts to create life in the laboratory.. none have succeeded. That does not mean it can never happen, but for the time being, abiogenesis is scientifically impossible. Make another hypothesis, test it, & see if you can do it. That is the ONLY way it can be proved, scientifically.

Great. Another appeal to time. No, it does not. Time has NO mechanism to affect change. It merely plods along, indifferent to the actions in the universe.

That is the 'hopeful monster' theory.. or wishful optimism that given enough time, anything can happen. But that is not science, & not even statistics. You can construct a statistical analysis of random letters coming together to form a word, but no such correlation can be made with the building blocks of life. We can't even force it, with all the right pieces, under perfect conditions. It is IMPOSSIBLE. Claiming that given enough time, odds are it can happen is an irrational appeal, not based in science.

You can make the claim that if you keep jumping, eventually the odds are that you can reach the moon. But this is absurd. If you cannot do it after repeated experiments, & if there is a force or law preventing the action, then how can you claim it to be possible, just by adding time?

The monkey theorem is a false equivalency to the ToE. Statistically, it is possible, given enough repetitions, to bang out the works of shakespeare. You can calculate the iterations needed for such an event. But without a statistical structure of possibility, no statistical calculations can be made, & the premise itself has no meaning, as it is a scientifically impossible event. No amount of time or repetitions of abiogenesis 'events' can account for the glaring inability of life to spring from non life. Asserting it as a possibility is sci fi, not science.

 

Take as many steps as you want. Show the intermediate 'flow' from one set of genetic makeup to another. Merely hiding behind time does not provide the mechanism for change at the genetic level. Show HOW a scale can change into a feather, cold blood to warm, solid bones to hollow, all in a fast sequence that cannot be observed, repeated, or tested, but is merely asserted. There is no such mechanism to overcome the genetic code. Mutating a few genes in a lizard cannot, scientifically, be the mechanism for the drastic, changes in a bird. It is not merely swapping out a few chromosomes, or rearranging some lego blocks. The genes are completely different, & do not interchange with each other. Oh, you might find one here or there, that can fool the organism & make a mutant, like the glowing cats, but this is not a recipe for increasing complexity.

Asserting that scales became feathers is easy. Showing how this CAN happen is the hard part, & is what differentiates science from imagination.

 

I posted another link on vestigial organs.. perhaps you missed it. This is from an evolutionist, but the reasoning & science is very sound, & deserves consideration.

Evolutionary zoologist S. R. Scadding (University of Guelph) has stated (175f.):
"The 'vestigial organ' argument uses as a premise the assertion that the organ in question has no function. There is no way however, in which this negative assertion can be arrived at scientifically. That is, one can not prove that something does not exist (in this case a certain function), since of course if it does not exist one cannot observe it, and therefore one can say nothing about it scientifically. The best we can do is to state that despite diligent effort, no function was discovered for a given organ. However it may be that some future investigator will the discover the function. Consequently, the vestigial organ argument has as a premise, either a statement of ignorance (I couldn't identify the function), or a scientifically invalid claim (it does not have a function). Such an argument, from ignorance, or from negative results, is not valid scientifically, and has no place in observational or experimental science.

"Since it is not possible to unambiguously identify useless structures, and since the structure of the argument used is not scientifically valid, I conclude that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no special evidence for the theory of evolution."
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u...l organs' provide evidence for evolution..pdf

 

this seems like simple hand waiving to me. what specific mechanism is it you claim prevents these changes from happening?

 

That argument does not apply to the vomeronasal organ because:
(1) The vomeronasal organ has a clearly defined purpose (for lower-order animals who needed it). If you are claiming humans were created as-is by an intelligent designer, farming and domesticating animals from the first generation, then it was a useless organ to install in a human being.
(2) The vomeronasal organ is disconnected from the brain. Even if it had a useful purpose for a human being, it would be poor design to install it without the nerves to connect to the brain. It would be like installing a heat sensor in your PC but not bothering to connect it to the fan so it could do something useful.

So... nobody is trying to prove the vomeronasal organ has NO function. It obviously has a function, and the only logical explanation for it to be installed in a human being is that it was inherited from a prior lifeform that was so different from modern humans that it actually needed that organ. After many generations of no longer being relevant there was no advantage to those with working versions of the organ so we lost the nerve connection to it (and nobody really noticed). What is your explanation for the vomeronasal organ?

 

Likely the same as for leg bones deep inside whales....as in none. Instead it is ignored in favor of a subject change.

 

I disagree, just look at how many different breeds of dogs which shows drastic changes in their appearance in a relative short time frame in history. Sure they all share many characteristics as far behavior but not in appearance.

 

Genetics. Observation. Millennia.

We have not observed any of these 'changes' ever. They are asserted, but not observed. What we observe is the opposite. One genetic makeup produces progeny of the same genetic makeup. They do not increase in complexity, or convert scales to feathers, or cold blood to warm. There is no visible, repeatable, testable mechanism that can overcome the restrictions within the genetic code. We can 'breed' animals to reduce variability, to highlight certain traits, as in dogs or cows or sheep, but we cannot move a dog to a bear, or into another distinct genetic structure.. chromosome pairs, genes, etc.

The problem is not for me to prove it cannot happen.. that is observable reality. The problem is for you to prove it CAN happen, & thereby imply that it DID happen.

 

There are several questions that science cannot answer simply because we were not around to witness it. I do believe in evolution in general and I do not believe a GOD was involved. However, it seems obvious to me that there is an underlying mechanism that possesses some sort of intelligence to increase those living at the time the ability to grow feathers or fur before an drastic change in climate like an ice age for these species to survive the process.

What I am trying to say if any drastic global climate change happened rapidly, most if not all of the species that did not evolve those traits before the climate changed, they would have all died. Obviously wiping out any ability for offspring to be reproduced. Today we all talk about global warming and it is rapidly increasing but for that to actually be true, we should be witnessing many species becoming extinct right now. If species are not dying then obviously changes in their DNA are occurring right now so they survive if it is true global warming is now out of control.

Science can only provide information but you must keep in mind they choose the words to name it, describe it, categorized it, etc. The same word salad language is taught from generation to generation. So of course, anybody who is taught evolution is going to believe it and people of religious education are going to believe its version of life's history.

The fact no other entity exists here that can tell us whether we are right or wrong in a language we can understand or the entity doesn't exist at all. It doesn't matter to any other life forms we share this planet with on how we choose to define the history of life on our planet.

 

can you show me the gene that prevents this?

what observation?

please explain.

Since these changes take millennia or longer, we can't actually observe them. But there is ample evidence to support the theory, with no alternative theory to challenge it.

but you are merely asserting the genetic code has restrictions. We know that certain life forms did not exist in their current form a million years ago. We know this from the fossil record. They came from somewhere. the ToE is the best scientific explanation of the evidence to date. If you have an alternative theory backed by evidence, please present it.

why? what mechanism specifically prevents this?

well, yea it is. ToE is the basis for modern biology. You don't have to accept it if you choose not to, but there is no other valid theory at this time. So if you wish to challenge ToE, you have a mighty big task ahead of you.

well, mammals didn't exist 200 million years ago, now they do. They came from somewhere. All available evidence to date points to common decent. If you have another scientific theory with as much evidence as ToE, please present it. You would be the most famous scientist in modern history if you could do that.