Thread: Evolution is a Joke IX

Originally Posted by DBM aka FDS

Problems with “change in allele’s over time yadda yadda” crap… I will make it very easy – an allele is a part of a car. Evolution states we can take a car and make tractor… It’s still a motor vehicle, still has some of the same parts, but is drastically different. An allele is a part of that car and/or tractor… The genes (or chromosome – depending) is the car or tractor. Change in the allele crap is that if we change the tire enough the whole car will change… Well, that’s incorrect, because unless you keep within the “parameters” of the car tire, and let’s say, put on a tractor tires, the car does not work.

No, alleles/genes are the blueprints for how the car is made, not the actual car parts, to use your analogy. And, much like cars or tractors, minor variations are built around the current design, while larger design changes incorporate much larger redesigns.

However, at a certain point, the analogy breaks down because motor-vehicles are not organisms.

How do they explain that? Find anything? Nope… anything stating “Look, here we can see how the allele has changed the whole gene sequence (chromosome) into something else… now we have (Presto Chango’d) stems that will eventually turn into feathers (after a couple mutations through natural selection ) after the allele for hair color (Presto Chango’s) continues to change from brown to blonde… or mutates (Presto Chango’s into something completely different)

Alleles change because there are mutations within the genetic code. Jesus, you've been arguing this for, what, like 4 years now? You should know better.

So, short version because I don't want to waste my time too much.

DNA has four bases: ATCG. A combination composed of three bases makes up a codon, which codes for a specific amino acid, which ribosomes use to construct proteins, which are chains of amino acids.

You change the codon, you change the amino acid (sometimes; the last position in a codon usually doesn't affect which amino acid is used to make a protein), which can change the function of a protein (in varying amounts; sometimes changing a terminal amino acid on a protein will result in no change, some amino acids are very similar to one another and don't produce changes in proteins, while others can cause enormous changes with a single amino acid substitution), which can produce macroscopic changes in development or biochemistry. Depends on which protein is affected and how.

This also makes some genes highly conserved, because if they change, the organism simply dies, while other genes code for proteins that don't do a whole lot and thus can be changed quite frequently and rapidly because they don't kill the organism. The former is something like a growth hormone gene, which can kill an organism during development if it is mutated. An example of the latter is the proteins that code for certain taste-bud receptors that have an intense reaction to certain chemicals.

READERS – if you are new Akhlut is a biologist or at least know what he/she is talking about and we have had great discussions without personal attacks, I pray this is one of those discussions again.

Welcome Back Akhlut – it is a pleasure!

Originally Posted by Akhlut

No, alleles/genes are the blueprints for how the car is made, not the actual car parts, to use your analogy. And, much like cars or tractors, minor variations are built around the current design, while larger design changes incorporate much larger redesigns.

However, at a certain point, the analogy breaks down because motor-vehicles are not organisms.

I have to disagree… I wasn’t trying to say “how they were made”… I suggested that looking at a gene sequence we can analyze what is a tire (color), spark plug (texture), radio (height) and so forth. P205/70R15 95S is the tire size and no matter what “type” of tire company you use, it will not turn into tractor tires… Just like hair color is not going to turn purple… If we compare “the car” to gene sequences we can draw a parallel of gene sequences are all different types of transportation including walking and all the shoes you can wear, to every type of boat, car and bicycle. So, a car can be taken as a single hair follicle. The gene would be for hair, and the allele would be how that “hair” is built… So, we can conclude that the gene sequence is a car, and the allele’s are the parts of what the car is.

Yes, you are correct the analogy would break down, but I was only using it as only an analogy up to the point of comparisons of allele’s to things we can visualize…

Alleles change because there are mutations within the genetic code. Jesus, you've been arguing this for, what, like 4 years now? You should know better.

I do know not, well… better, but the truth. What is a positive “mutation” within homosapiens sapiens? Should have a name… Whomever found it… The Akhlut Mutation gives individuals fluorescent pink skin pigmentation… Now, there is an idea that this is what happens, but there is no evidence of it “actually” happening… As I stated before – gene’s don’t like to be altered in “any” way. They don’t take to kindly to “adding” new stuff… and that is what a mutation is… the addition of something new within the sequence that doesn’t “correspond” with the other genes… Whole “allele’s” don’t mutate, but a certain “part” might. This, 99.9999999 exp2% end up horribly (they say this), but there is not an example of that .000001% of a mutation actually being good. We can force “whole allele’s” into another lifeform. That has been demonstrated, even though it is very, very, very ridiculously rare.

So, let’s just talk about what “has” taken place instead of what “we think might” take place…

So, short version because I don't want to waste my time too much.

DNA has four bases: ATCG. A combination composed of three bases makes up a codon, which codes for a specific amino acid, which ribosomes use to construct proteins, which are chains of amino acids.

Yep!

You change the codon, you change the amino acid (sometimes; the last position in a codon usually doesn't affect which amino acid is used to make a protein), which can change the function of a protein (in varying amounts; sometimes changing a terminal amino acid on a protein will result in no change, some amino acids are very similar to one another and don't produce changes in proteins, while others can cause enormous changes with a single amino acid substitution), which can produce macroscopic changes in development or biochemistry. Depends on which protein is affected and how.

I don’t think that has ever happened or been conducted in experimentation… can you please provide this analogy with experimentation or is it just a hypothesis…? I can’t see how a “start” codon, if mutated can “start” anything… or better “change” the function of a protein… You better look that up, because I think I am about 100% right. That isn’t happening…

ever…

This also makes some genes highly conserved, because if they change, the organism simply dies, while other genes code for proteins that don't do a whole lot and thus can be changed quite frequently and rapidly because they don't kill the organism. The former is something like a growth hormone gene, which can kill an organism during development if it is mutated. An example of the latter is the proteins that code for certain taste-bud receptors that have an intense reaction to certain chemicals.

I do see your point, but wouldn’t the “lesser” mutations be more like adaptation? Because what is going to need to happen is those ones that make an organism “die” will need to happen because there has to be a drastic change in the taste-bud receptors for those to become octopus suckers… Which is my point from the beginning.

IF most mutations end up horribly, why would we “assume” that there are good ones? Genes do not like to be tampered with… Things in the body do not like to be changed and the likelihood of things changing is absurd… Akhlut, if evolution was real, we would see it… There would be babies happening all over the place that would show us evolution as different alleles came into existence and were being spread across a species of life. I think my “dog scenario” is outstanding! You should read it…

If you took 5 of every dog (size included) in about 20 generations you’d have one dog type (like one breed that most of the dog resembles from dominant genes)… and it would be a mix of them all with the potential, if introduced to any of the other dogs, to breed and return to any within its gene sequences that it has from its ancestors… They all sure the hell wouldn’t turn into all labs… As evolution states… Look at the evidence, what we know… How can evolution happen?

This means the following… We will take two extremes, the Chihuahua (Chi) and the Irish Wolf Hound (IWH).. Smallest and largest… At first they are unable to breed together, but after time interbreeding with other races the offspring of the Chi, descendants are now able to breed with descendants of the IWH. We will say it took them 10 breeds between them both to get to be able to breed… Their offspring would now have DNA from 10 breeds on moms side and 10 breeds on father side, along with the original breed. Because of this, you would be able to Breed any of the 22 breeds BACK to its original features since the DNA is there and quite quickly. In the first litter with a pure breed of one of the 22, you would probably see “one” of the original breed. See, this is what happens, this is what we see… Not some new races or breeds appear… They will always be dogs, because that is the genes they have!

This dealt with Natural Selection, but I think you can see where I am going with this…

Glad to have you back…

I was kinda leery about this part Ak… so I looked it up…

Originally Posted by Akhlut

You change the codon, you change the amino acid (sometimes; the last position in a codon usually doesn't affect which amino acid is used to make a protein), which can change the function of a protein (in varying amounts; sometimes changing a terminal amino acid on a protein will result in no change, some amino acids are very similar to one another and don't produce changes in proteins, while others can cause enormous changes with a single amino acid substitution), which can produce macroscopic changes in development or biochemistry. Depends on which protein is affected and how.

This also makes some genes highly conserved, because if they change, the organism simply dies, while other genes code for proteins that don't do a whole lot and thus can be changed quite frequently and rapidly because they don't kill the organism. The former is something like a growth hormone gene, which can kill an organism during development if it is mutated. An example of the latter is the proteins that code for certain taste-bud receptors that have an intense reaction to certain chemicals.

And I was correct… So, I will say this in my own words of course… If the start codon is in fact “infected” with a mutation that whole message is just done. The proteins get recycled basically…

Since this is the case, we are back at square one. Per experimentation and evidence provided, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY that evolution can take place.

We have discussed every faucet of evolution. When we get to specifics, as Ak and I just did, there is a stumbling point. Do you all see it? It “can’t” happen… Oh, those religious ones believing in Darwin will show you cartoon characters of it happening, spin lies of “how” it happens using fairytales like “natural selection” and “change in allele”… This is science, biology… It’s like the Show Me state. If you say it happens – SHOW ME! Let’s go to your lab and show me. Not, look at my Powerpoint presentation on how it works… Show me!

But, since Darwinism (evolution) is a “faith” they need not show you anything, it’s all smoke and mirrors… Read… See… Who has “ever” provided “anything” dealing with evolution? We have the world wide web and nothing… Over and Over and Over and Over again… Oh – they talk a good game, now show me how what you just stated has been confirmed… This isn’t Middle Earth where magic users mystify us with parlor tricks…

Here is something even “easier” to show us evolution… Well, it’s not even evolution, but more on the lines of “mutation within a population and then propagated in a species over time” (one of the definitions of evolution – which doesn’t describe evolution in the least). Scenario: West Coast we have a black robin, all black… On the East Coast there is an all red robin… In the Bible Belt, there is something peculiar happening… What could it be? It’s “EVOLUTION”!!! The black birds have a mutated allele (gene sequence) that turns some of their feathers red in different patterns. As you move toward the East Coast, the red feather increase in numbers as opposite on the West Coast they do not turn red, but turn black. Over the years we can see that red ones are being reduced in number by a predator called the Red Robin Hawk as the black ones are able to multiply and not hunted by the Red Robin Hawk – because they are not “RED”…. We predict in the next 200 years (about 80 generations) the black robin will be all across North America and the red robin will cease to exist…

and…

The Red Robin Hawk goes extinct…

Now… I ask… Is that how it works? Is that what we see? OF COURSE NOT… What do we actually see and know? The dog scenario… Remember… Nothing would take over… Once the gene pool got mixed – we would have mixed breeds. Black robins having red, black and mixed chicks… has anyone seen different? Has anyone seen people breed mixed dogs and they all turn out as one breed, and that breed, being stronger and faster, shows gene dominance (since replications knows what traits will be dominant ) over the other dog genes? NO! When the bird got the mutation and started to breed, like in the dog situation, it would just mix up the gene pool and give different variations of the allele like hair color, or eye color… Do we see that everyone will have blue eyes in 100 generations? NO! That’s a retarded statement… But, that is what evolution wants you to believe… That we can all be blonde hair and blue eyes (even the Asians) in just a couple generations, once that gene pool gets mixed up…

Since all races has the “albino” mutation – I suggest that we will all evolve into albino midgets by 2082….

(sorry about my tardiness in posting....)

Good Morning/Afternoon!!!

Question... What is the difference between all the citrus trees? It is said that they all came from like 3 - 5 ancestors. So... here is the question... How come we can't take the genes for the lime and lemon and make limons? If they have a common ancestor - it should be easy... We can make a Lab/Boxer can't we? Mix the genes... I know of trees (heard actually) like growing lemons and limes on one tree, but what about "mixing" the alleles to make a "new" friut within the same genus?

Because I am wondering, if the fruit stays seperate on the tree (lemons and limes) how can you say that they combined two trees to make a certain fruit, when it doesn't happen in nature?

Anyone? Just pointing out what "THEY SAY" should happen compared to what ACTUALLY DOES HAPPEN...

All sciences ask questions about the natural world, propose explanations in terms of natural processes, and evaluate these explanations using evidence from the natural world. Evolutionary biology is no exception. Darwin's basic conception of evolutionary change and diversification (illustrated with a page from his notebook at left) explains many observations in terms of natural processes and is supported by evidence from the natural world.

- Some of the questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer include:

- Does evolution tend to proceed slowly and steadily or in quick jumps?

- Why are some clades very diverse and some unusually sparse?

- How does evolution produce new and complex features?

- Are there trends in evolution, and if so, what processes generate them?

Now looking at these questions... How can we sit and say we have an understanding of evolution when these questions ae not answered. Those questions are doozies too... I know that some of you have already answered them, which I found funny, but can you see the problem? Can you see now how evolution is more of a religion than anything else?

Now I will break this down for you to understand how important these questions are… Because the first paragraph means so much and it basically says that evolution is a religion from the get-go! Ready?

Some of the questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer include:

- Does evolution tend to proceed slowly and steadily or in quick jumps?
This is important because it basically states that evolution has “never” been observed. Not in a lab, not in nature, not anywhere. Evolution has not been observed so we don’t know how it proceeds…

- Why are some clades very diverse and some unusually sparse?
Okay – most of you have no idea what a clade is, as I have read. And some of you tried to explain “your” version of what a clade is. A clade is a group of like species that shows descent. So, what they are saying is what I have stated. In, from what they preach, is that life evolves, and I say that’s hogwash. Everything from an extinction has not changed. Thus, from the first extinction whatever survived is unchanged and has, what they call a sparse clade.

- How does evolution produce new and complex features?
That’s a DOOZY now isn’t it!!! I think that says it all now doesn’t it…

- Are there trends in evolution, and if so, what processes generate them?
Again, it hasn’t been witnessed so we can’t see the trends…

Now back to Berkeley: All sciences ask questions about the natural world, propose explanations in terms of natural processes, and evaluate these explanations using evidence from the natural world. Evolutionary biology is no exception. Darwin's basic conception of evolutionary change and diversification explains many observations in terms of natural processes and is supported by evidence from the natural world.

Do you see the contradictions? It basically says in the questions, “We don’t know crap” then you can read that it says they’ve observed evolution (a lie), there is evidence (a lie), and is in the natural world (the final lie). None of these things are true. None of these things have happened… But, those still believe in this fairytale! If it is science and falls under all things science then where is the evidence? Where is the lab work? The footnotes?... Where is anything?

All I have asked was questions to those who believe – I have asked them their own questions and it seems NONE have had any… Well, maybe one… But, they all just believe in their religion without question. I ask them to show me something that has evolved in a lab… the lab work of this evidence of evolution… I have received nothing…

I can’t see how someone can be so black and white with science, because that is how it works and then say they believe in evolution? It’s a blind faith I don’t understand. It’s like they put their fingers in their ears and yell while you tell them that evolution is a religion more than science…

Now I will break this down for you to understand how important these questions are… Because the first paragraph means so much and it basically says that evolution is a religion from the get-go! Ready?

Some of the questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer include:

- Does evolution tend to proceed slowly and steadily or in quick jumps?
This is important because it basically states that evolution has “never” been observed. Not in a lab, not in nature, not anywhere. Evolution has not been observed so we don’t know how it proceeds…

- Why are some clades very diverse and some unusually sparse?
Okay – most of you have no idea what a clade is, as I have read. And some of you tried to explain “your” version of what a clade is. A clade is a group of like species that shows descent. So, what they are saying is what I have stated. In, from what they preach, is that life evolves, and I say that’s hogwash. Everything from an extinction has not changed. Thus, from the first extinction whatever survived is unchanged and has, what they call a sparse clade.

- How does evolution produce new and complex features?
That’s a DOOZY now isn’t it!!! I think that says it all now doesn’t it…

- Are there trends in evolution, and if so, what processes generate them?
Again, it hasn’t been witnessed so we can’t see the trends…

Now back to Berkeley: All sciences ask questions about the natural world, propose explanations in terms of natural processes, and evaluate these explanations using evidence from the natural world. Evolutionary biology is no exception. Darwin's basic conception of evolutionary change and diversification explains many observations in terms of natural processes and is supported by evidence from the natural world.

Do you see the contradictions? It basically says in the questions, “We don’t know crap” then you can read that it says they’ve observed evolution (a lie), there is evidence (a lie), and is in the natural world (the final lie). None of these things are true. None of these things have happened… But, those still believe in this fairytale! If it is science and falls under all things science then where is the evidence? Where is the lab work? The footnotes?... Where is anything?

All I have asked was questions to those who believe – I have asked them their own questions and it seems NONE have had any… Well, maybe one… But, they all just believe in their religion without question. I ask them to show me something that has evolved in a lab… the lab work of this evidence of evolution… I have received nothing…

I can’t see how someone can be so black and white with science, because that is how it works and then say they believe in evolution? It’s a blind faith I don’t understand. It’s like they put their fingers in their ears and yell while you tell them that evolution is a religion more than science…

Per Merrian Webster definition of religion - third and fourth definition:

3: archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Number four (4) I think hits the head of the donkey (is that even a saying?). What happens is people have gathered around evolution as a “stand all” type of religion because of an idiot (from England mind you) that has pushed evolution on people. It is taught in schools, it is on the television, it’s all over and the propaganda is spreading! The, what I found out during these threads, Creationist didn’t help either. Evolution is biology as God is not… To try to put them in the same category is retarded. They should be ashamed!

By trying to “combat” evolution was a good thing, but I think they did it in a wrong way. OR shouldn’t have done it at all (thinking the later being more correct). I can’t say that I don’t believe in God, because I do. I can’t say I’m a “Christian” because I’m not. Do I have faith? Yes, I’m an Agnostic Theist. I believe, but I don’t know what it “is” God. There has to be something. Genetics is there and just “proves” there is something. We are an experiment, Gaia, God… It’s all just there.

What I know and what you all should know is this. There is no way evolution can happen. It can’t. Things do not “Presto Chango” into existence like evolution states. We know what happens when we mix dogs or birds. There is no evidence of evolution happening and thus should dismiss it and work on other options. Gaia has been tested in a lab and passed the Scientific Method. NO! I am not trying to pass Gaia on all of you – just showing you how ridiculous it is that we are stuck on “evolution”.

Evolution should not be taught in schools. I do agree that if you are going to teach the fairytale of evolution to my daughter (whom it is happening now) then you need to teach every fairytale there is, like we are just a particle of dust in some cats litter box. I tell my daughter the truth. I tell her, “have you seen evolution? Has your teacher? Then they have faith it has happened from when they were told that it happens. Those that believe are just like those who have Faith in God. Neither have seen what has happened, but they have to have Faith, that the people who told them that it DID happen was telling the truth”… All you Christians reading… That is what you say to your kids that have to go through this. That’s what you tell them at work… Spread the word.

I can’t stand Darwinist usually, because they have no CLUE the first thing about biology or their religion. Next time you hear someone popping off about Darwinism, ask them what a “clade” is. That’s like asking a Christian who The Holy Spirit is… Even, as I have shown you on a regular, is that the “Evolutionary Biologist” have no clue what’s going on. All they say is, “Well, that’s what we think happens because we don’t know anything else…” It’s a guess, but to get their Government checks for research, they need to make it “sound” real. To make their life useful… To get those Gov’t loans for millions to pay their 150k salary and their jobs are meaningless…

Evolution is a fact. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has been established by proof based upon empirical evidence and verified by genetic experimentation on plants and animals, and overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community. Contrast to this are the claims of "Creationists" paraded as science under the rubric of "Intelligent Design" that is based on the assumption that life was created, which, of necessity, assumes the existence of a "Creator." Such argument is mere speculation and inconsistent with scientific method, for it is nothing more than a presumption that is not evidence, much less proof. The same arguments and challenges to evolution advanced by the proponents of "Intelligent Design" were proved to have no support in the scientific community and ruled to be religious doctrine and not science. SeeTammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005). To posit creationism as a theological explanation is one thing; but to posture it as science is unsupportable if not outright dishonest, and only reflects discredit upon religious belief.

Happy Monday Readers...

Originally Posted by Nemo

Evolution is a fact. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has been established by proof based upon empirical evidence and verified by genetic experimentation on plants and animals, and overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community. Contrast to this are the claims of "Creationists" paraded as science under the rubric of "Intelligent Design" that is based on the assumption that life was created, which, of necessity, assumes the existence of a "Creator." Such argument is mere speculation and inconsistent with scientific method, for it is nothing more than a presumption that is not evidence, much less proof. The same arguments and challenges to evolution advanced by the proponents of "Intelligent Design" were proved to have no support in the scientific community and ruled to be religious doctrine and not science. SeeTammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al., 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005). To posit creationism as a theological explanation is one thing; but to posture it as science is unsupportable if not outright dishonest, and only reflects discredit upon religious belief.

Good Monday Nemo…

I will entertain your post. But, realize I am not going to address the majority of it since it has a large portion devoted to God. After we take out the God within your post, what we are left with is the following. Evolution is fact. There is proof of evolution due to natural selection and genetic experimentation on plants and animals. The scientific community believes in it, thus it is true.

Okay… I will address one part about God, and that is it is inconsistent with the “scientific method”. That is correct. Religion is a belief system. I have proposed that Darwinism is also a belief system. The scientific method is showing that what you have suggested, or guessed should happen, in fact “does” happen. This is done through experimentation or observation. Now… Evolution states that we all came from – dogs, dung beetles, rose bushes, pond scum, sharks, starfish, grass, and us from a common ancestor. This was done through the processes of evolution. That we all have a common ancestor. That there is a “tree” that shows us what we descended from. Well…. If that is the case, then how did the “guess” get passed the scientific method? Where is the observation of “new species” or the experiment of complexity? The fact is, there isn’t… Thus, per the scientific community, as you stated, evolution is “mere speculation and inconsistent with (the) scientific method”. Unless, you can provide an experiment that states otherwise… (just to let you know – you can’t. Been asking that for about three years on this site and haven’t seen anything that even comes close)

Now to address the rest of your post. Natural selection is a lie. Predators do not “select” anything. Does a spider pass up a meal and lets the strong and intelligent flies out of the web? Does a snake let the strong mice pass and waits for the slow ones? Does a eagle only choose the salmon that are the slowest swimmers? Of course not. The suggestion that natural selection is a “real” thing is funny to me. All anyone would have to do is watch “one” nature show on the Serengeti and watch how “natural selection” is ridiculous. The only selection there is – is sexual selection and that puts life, usually at a disadvantage. The bird with the brightest colors, or loudest mating call (making them acceptable to predators), largest horns (makes them top heavy to run from predators), largest, tallest, brightest… all of which is not “good” for that lifeform… Natural selection states that only the intelligent and strong mate. Do you know how impossible that is? Most insects to animals to plants do not have a choice. The animals get “raped” usually and plants get pollenated by whatever comes by… Animalia – being the smallest domain, how does natural selection work for the rest of the larger lifeform domains? It doesn’t… How does natural selection work for “simple life” (which isn’t really simple) or flora? How does natural selection work in us? Please love to hear that only the strong and “best” people have children, when it is obviously the complete opposite.

Genetic experimentation is not there. Everything dealing with experimentation is a complete pipe dream. You take (made up lifeform) simple lifeform panto – the simplest of simple and they watch it. It changes, but the end result is it’s still a panto. Nothing every changes into something else. The fact that we do not know what the missing link is. Not the missing like for us, but for every living thing that we have a fossil of. Every living thing that ever lived on this planet we do not have a link for. We say that life descended from other life and we do not have a missing link for not one lifeform that ever lived on this planet. That means, dealing with the life that lived on this planet and us making a positive connection between two lifeforms, we are 0 for 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000,000,000 for not having evidence for common descent, and that is being generous.

And why is Darwinism a religion? Because of the statement that was posted. The scientific community believes in it. Nobody has ever seen it, but since “They Say” so, then I’ll believe. I will follow their words… I have never seen this “evolution”… They have not provided anything proving this evolution, but I will believe. I will follow. Blindly… Thus, it is a religion. But, I will give you and anyone to back up their statements and provide any evidence of this “fact” that they say is evolution….

Good Luck!