The Central Flaw of Evolution

Uhhhh Okay

That is your best so back to AA who understands this better.

 

I understand the Einstein part. But as I get this, what you are explaining is from experiments post Einsteins' death.

I do not recall Einstein calling the warping of space as space time.

I think of time as what man uses to describe his day, using the rotation of Earth as a form of measurement.

So why don't they reconstruct clocks to demonstrate the new concept?

 

Because Space-Time is relative.

You cannot have time without space and vice versa.

Example....U.S. GPS Satellites internal clocks must be reset daily because of Time Dilation.

Any object or space craft traveling away from a gravity well such as the Earth will experience time passage at a different rate even in orbit and the higher the velocity of travel the greater the time dilation.

We placed atomic clocks that were in sync...one was left on Earth and another was placed in the Space Shuttle and we have done this on other previous missions.

The shuttle orbited the Earth at high velocity and when it came back the clocks were compared and it was found the clock on the shuttle was slightly ahead of time than the one left on the Earth.

In effect the Astronauts and the Shuttle and clock in space traveled a short amount of time into the FUTURE.

Thus if you traveled away from Earth at say 1/2 the speed of light you would experience a few months of time passage on the space craft however many YEARS of time would pass on Earth.

AA

 

I recall Einstein discussing that part.

This can boggle the mind. What happens is we don't experience it in a way we measured it. Since this is pure chat, it is still amazing.

 

The REAL world is far more amazing than the imaginary world that's created by religion. The bible created an imaginary world with talking snakes and wordwide floods---BORING!!! Can any of the "supernatural" myths imagined by religious folk hold a candle to actual physics, where things can transport from one part of the universe to another, where you can slow down or speed up time, where you can change your size (due to length contraction, you become smaller the faster you go), or your mass (you become more massive, the faster you go), where 95% of the universe consists of a type of invisible substance that you cannot see, smell, taste, feel, hear or touch, and in a universe that contains more stars than there are grains of sand on all the beaches of the earth? And that's just the observable universe. The actual universe is likely much larger. The actual number of stars may be greater than the number of grains of sand on all the beaches of the earth times a trillion.

You know that we can only see the "observable universe". That's only the part of the universe that we can see, because light takes time to travel to earth. We can't see outside the observable universe cause light hasn't had enough time to reach us. Thus, we don't know exactly how big the actual universe is. According to some estimates, the actual universe may be to the observable universe what the observable universe is to an atom. And that's not even going into multiverses---the idea that an infinite number of universes may exist.....talk about mind being blown....

 

And here's another question--if the number of stars in the universe is really greater than the number of grains of sand on all the beaches of the earth times a trillion---do you honestly think that a god who created this kind of universe---gives a hoot about us insignificant humans?

 

I am not clear why you hit against religion, but keep in mind that the purpose of religion is not to deal with what you spoke of. When speaking of the Bible, much is history and though a lot of stories told all over this globe by various groupls was included in their books by a widely varying peoples, those stories all had some purpose.

Some of us are trying to chat about Einsteins concepts and see how those match up to later research.

- - - Updated - - -

I am not clear why you hit against religion, but keep in mind that the purpose of religion is not to deal with what you spoke of. When speaking of the Bible, much is history and though a lot of stories told all over this globe by various groupls was included in their books by a widely varying peoples, those stories all had some purpose.

Some of us are trying to chat about Einsteins concepts and see how those match up to later research.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought this was about science?

 

Actually you can do that because your analogy is flawed.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/02/human-dna-enlarges-mouse-brains

 

Seriously? No response to the OP, or any of the scientific challenges i've made? Just ad hominem, aspersions on me, & deflections?

I guess i don't blame you. If i was trying to defend something as pathetically lame as the ToE, that is all i would have, too.

How about sticking with science, instead of deflecting with personal comments, or intellectual smears, or other lame tactics. I have provided clear, serious problems with the ToE, & the assumptions of lego block genetics that it presents. But that is NOT how genetics works. If you don't understand the basics of modern genetics, & the complexities of genes, chromosomes, & all the interrelating components, fine.. research it yourself, or just say you don't know. But projecting your own ignorance onto me is a pathetic tactic by propagandists, not for someone who esteems the scientific method.

I have clearly stated that some GENES can be moved around.. put in other organisms, or used to fool the host to bring about some trait, like the glowing cats. But you cannot do that with chromosomes. They are not lego block collections of genes that you can just stick in some other organism, like tires on a car.

Show me. I was born in Missouri. Show me a SINGLE experiment that demonstrates the assumptions in the ToE. Show me increasing complexity, the formation of the eye, added traits, jumps between chimps & man, or vice versa. Gene don't do that $h*t. And spare me the patronizing, demeaning comments. They are just pathetic attempts to deflect from the impotence of your own arguments, & expose you as lying propagandists, instead of logical debaters.

Forcing a single gene, that was taken from some other organism, does not prove the ability for an organism to CREATE its own traits. ALL traits are contained within the dna.. in the millions of genes & combinations that are passed down in the organism. Tell me where the variability with canidae comes from.. Prove it. Show me how it was 'created' on the fly, by environmental forces, or some other imagined mechanism. Rebut my post on canids, & the studies i presented, if you dare. Take as many generations as you want. Studies on fruit flies have gone into the millions, yet still no 'evolution'.. just 'devolution'.

I have been very patient, as i recognize the 'fun' of forums with ridicule, mocking, & snarky comments. I let a lot of that slide, but that is NOT the purpose of this thread. Post some logic. Provide some evidence. Put up or shut up. I will not suffer fools forever, & will tire of bickering with propagandists & liars who only want to disrupt the conversation. But perhaps that is your goal... Truth & understanding are not, but obfuscation & shutting down speech, is. Typical leftist tactics.

Assertions & dogmatism is fine for religious beliefs.. but if you want to deal with science, you have to have facts & evidence. That may seem like a novel concept in these modern times, when science is 'declared' & 'facts' are indoctrinated by the state run propaganda institutions. But i am old school.. i actually believe that science is a method of discovery, not a tactic of indoctrination.

 

Hi Ken.. long time no see.
Post it. I've heard of many experiments, but that one has not rung a bell. Tell me what the parameters were, the tests, the results, & the conclusions. I'm all ears.

 

No, my analogy fits your example perfectly. You are talking about a human GENE.. a specific 'word' (from the analogy), inserted into a particular location in a mouse. It 'fooled' the blueprint, but not to the point of killing it, as most of these experiments do. This was not a chromosome, or anything that the mouse did to 'create' this trait, but was carefully inserted in laboratory conditions. You do not suggest that this happens naturally, in the wild? You have not changed the mouse's basic genetic structure, by merely splicing one gene in the place of another. You cannot do this with just any gene, with just any organism. There has to be a very similar structure & function, for the spliced gene to 'take'.

Further experimentation will be needed to see if there is any point in this testing. Perhaps they can engineer a 'super mouse', or perhaps it will just die, as most of these experiments do. But this was the result of intelligent engineering, not random processes. And there is no way you can show how some highly complex gene is somehow magically 'created' by any natural process. So the problem remains. You still have no engine to power the ToE. It is a pretty car, gleaming & sparkling on the showroom floor, but it has no power, no engine, & cannot go anywhere. You can tell me how fast it is, but until you get it started, & take it out on the road, that is all speculation & assertion.

 

All that the gene splicing did was to replicate a potential mutation of that gene.

Is is possible that in another billion years of evolution that mutation might occur naturally in mice?

Of course it is possible because we know that mutations occur.

The experiment was to determine what effect that gene mutation had on humans by comparing it to the same gene in chimpanzees.

It is perfectly possible that this mutation could occur in any species. I would be curious to know if it can be found in dolphins, elephants and octopi.

 

1. Demonstrate your assertion.. quote the study, & present the facts.
2. Then, show how some aberration of a human in china, with spurious credibility, proves the assumptions in the ToE.
3. Or, show in other organisms the observed changes in chromosome numbers, creating distinct new genetic structures.

Mere assertion of something does not make it true. What you assert without evidence, i will dismiss without evidence.

Is this a science thread, or not? Are we going to discuss the SCIENCE of this, or just make religious, dogmatic assertions?

 

I have addressed this ad nauseum in this thread. Prove it. Show me HOW a mutation can 'create' complexity, form the components of the eye, or make vertical jumps in the genetic makeup. You cannot. That is an imagined mechanism, with no power to do as you believe. It is wishful thinking, nothing more.

 

Please present them, then. And show how any of these aberrations in the genome 'create' complexity, or add traits to the gene pool. I know of NO studies that show any such increases, especially in complex organisms. Show me a study where chromosome split or combined, & a distinctly different genetic structure was created.. new traits.. added features..

 

In the land of the blind the one eyed is king.

In a primordial sea of multicellular organisms a mutation occurs allowing a cell to specialize to distinguish between light and dark. Just a very simple adaption that changes the chemical resistance when there is light versus none. That mutation enables this particular organism to detect warmer water where food is more abundant. Because it has more access to food it replicates faster than those without this mutation.

From that simple adaption of a cell to perceive light it is possible for further mutations to occur and ultimately result in something as complex as the eye. Yes, it took billions of years for those mutations to occur but since they provided an evolutionary advantage for survival they were passed down to their descendants.

 

New traits are not created by splitting/combining chromosomes. Chromosomes are just the way the DNA is organized in the cell.

Here is a short list of articles and papers discussing chromosomes splitting/combining:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/31676/title/Gain-a-Chromosome-and-Adapt/
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb/
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/hfc6d/in_evolution_how_do_species_lose_or_gain/
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/21/basics-how-can-chromosome-numb/
http://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-13-16
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/51/21010.full.pdf
http://www.accessscience.com/content/chromosome-fusions-in-karyotype-evolution/YB150937

 

In the land of sci fi, imagination is king.

You can assert & believe whatever you want, but this is about science, & proving a theory by tests & repeatable experiments. You present imaginary scenarios, not anything actually demonstrated by science. It is a plausible belief, nothing more. There is no proof that this assertion can happen, or did happen, one million years ago or yesterday. There is no mechanism to overcome the genetic parameters.. the 'high walls' that were not understood previously, but now are making the concept as ridiculous as spontaneous generation, or other debunked 'theories' from the past.

 

The giraffes is just one example that occurred in history. They used to have a short neck. Those who had mutated to have a longer neck lived longer since they could reach foods that are much higher up. Short necked giraffes weren't as fortunate and they slowly died off.

But look at the crazy mutations go on today. Most of the time these mutations are useless and even harmful. But once in a while they are beneficial. So unless you want to argue that the only mutation is a bad mutation, which is baseless, then I would stop if I were you.


Let's look at various mutations that happen today

Kitten









And look at this. A snake born with a foot



Look, it also happens to humans



So you don't believe in evolution I gather. Before I destroy that argument using other people's argument, I'll post some more pics of mutations that you so confidently said isn't real or there is no evidence of.

 

I've said it before, i don't debate links. If you have a point to make, make it. You can support it with a quote from a source, but merely posting a list of links is meaningless. If you're sourcing a study that makes a claim, summarize it, & give the link. Use it in your own arguments, to make whatever point you are attempting. But i hope you see that merely saying, 'google it', is not an argument, but is a deflection, to give the appearance of expertise, when nothing has been presented. Hot links are not arguments, & prove nothing.

What kind of 'debate' would there be on forums if everyone just posted a link for every point made?

'Socialism is bad'.. http://www.socialismisbad.com

'Unh uhh... socialism is good' http://socialismisgood.com

'you're stupid.. obviously socialism is bad' http://socialismisreallybad.com

'no, you're stupid, socialism is wonderful!' http://www.socialismisreallywonderful.com

 

Well, that settles that!

Obviously, these pictures PROVE increasing complexity, & speciation. I like the guys with the hairy faces.. clearly 'new' species of hominids..

You claim that 'mutations' are the mechanism for increasing complexity.. but they do not do as you believe. They only produce aberrations WITHIN the gene structure. They don't add chromosomes, or traits, or create functions.. they merely distort existing genes.. with fatal consequences, most of the time. I don't deny mutation, but i do deny it as the engine for the ToE. You have NO experimentation or documentation that shows HOW a mutation + time, or any other variable can create any new traits, or change the basic genetic structure of the organism. That is merely extrapolated. You see aberrations, & imagine x-men changes. But mutations do not give anyone super powers. Only rarely is there any benefit, such as with bacteria resistance, but they never change the basic genetic framework.

 

[MENTION=58029]usfan[/MENTION]












There is clearly no evidence of mutations for both animals and humans

 

People who argue against evolution are arguing about the basis for moder biology. Common ancestry

Credit:
Glenn Anderson

Rather than quibble over the arbitrary distinction between microevolution and macroevolution, I'm going to try to address the apparent spirit of the question. By macroevolution I'm going to assume the questioner is referring to common ancestry, the idea that all living things are related via shared ancestors.

TL;DR: absolutely, so much so that scientists don't doubt it.

But I suppose you want more details.

To begin with, we need a framework by which we can judge evidence to see if it supports a proposition. Otherwise, I can just go around claiming that dogs support my proposition that candy is good for you.



See, it must be true.

For these purposes we will use the notion that the proposition must be able to make accurate predictions about the natural world, and we will judge the evidence against these predictions. If the evidence we find is consistent with the predictions that are made, then we will judge it supportive. And if it is is inconsistent, then it will be judged against the proposition. Build up enough contrary evidence, and soon your proposition doesn't look very good. Build up enough supporting evidence, and you will soon find other people taking notice and adding their own support.

Not just any old predictions, either, but predictions that are nontrivial, predictions that make bold claims, and predictions that could be shown false. And these predictions must be necessary consequences from the proposition being made, they can't just be arbitrary statements.

And in this context, our proposition is the hypotheses that all species are related via shared ancestry. And this methodological framework I'm using is more or less the Hypothetico-deductive method of science.

So, lets derive a prediction from the concept of common ancestry, and see how it can be tested. Any discussion of common ancestry needs to delve into taxonomy, since this is how we reconstruct species' relationships.

It all started with Carl Linnaeus, who put together one of the first, really useful systems for classifying species in 1735 with the publication of Systema Naturae. In this he organized species into a structure known as a Nested Hierarchy. This is an organization of objects, in this case, species, such that you get groups within groups within groups. Much like the files and folders on a hard drive. The criteria used to form these groups was a set of characteristics that all members shared. For instance, all vertebrates have a back bone, all mammals were vertebrates which produce milk, etc.. Also, interestingly, no species belonged to more than a single branch in the resulting tree structure. Even though superficially a whale might look a bit like a fish, based on the characteristics that would define fish, they would not be placed there.

Okay, so what? Well, here is where common ancestry comes in. While Linnaeus may have had an interesting observation, it is common ancestry that provides an explanation. The traits whereby species are classified, were inherited from an ancestor in which the trait first evolved. All mammals produce milk, because they inherited milk production from a common ancestor.

And we can use this to deduce some necessary consequences: predictions, from the hypothesis of common ancestry. For one, we can conclude that there is, in fact, a single, true taxonomy for life, one that reflects the actual lines of descent. And if that is true, then we should find that all attempts to reconstruct and refine this taxonomy, regardless of the dataset being used, the methods, or the scientists doing it, should converge on the true taxonomy of living things.

There are a lot of different types of data that can be analyzed trying to find a tree structure, we can use Morphology, or Genetics or even the structure of protein catalysts. Today, the method to detect tree structures in this sort of data is called Cladistics. It is a set of statistical and algorithmic methods for deriving trees from a matrix of character traits.

So, for the purposes of this example, I'm going to use cytochrome c, I'll be quoting from this excellent essay: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Here is the Figure 1 referenced in the following quote:

So, how risky was that prediction? If the hypothesis of common ancestry was false, It basically had a 1 in 10^38 chance of being correct. So, its confirmation is a very strong bit of evidence supporting common ancestry.

Now, this is just one small confirmation, of one particular prediction of common ancestry. If you read the rest of that excellent essay (The Scientific Case for Common Descent) you will find many, many more. From the the transitional fossil record, to atavisms, to shared endogenous retroviruses.

Common ancestry is the central, unifying paradigm of biology. As Theodosius Dobzhansky said, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution." Scientists don't accept something as profound and central as common ancestry without a great deal of support. And over the last 150+ years, evolution has withstood a heck of a lot of testing and scrutiny and criticism. And has come out the stronger for it.

Is there any scientific evidence for macroevolution? F@ck yeah!


Evolution is the basis for modern biology. The idea of common ancestry

 

Evolution is not a theory, but a proven fact. It is only the origin of species that is controversial.

 

[MENTION=58029]usfan[/MENTION]

so in short, you are arguing against mutations and Biology in general.

That's like arguing against gravity and the laws of physics.