The Central Flaw of Evolution

Many years back, i participated in a long running thread about evolution. As do most of the threads of this nature, it was flooded with off topic deflections, ad hominem, & outright distortions. But since the ToE is a constant in these forums, I thought i would bring up what i consider to be the central flaw in the theory.

The Theory of Evolution (ToE) is widely considered to be a fact, or 'settle science' by many people who have been subjects of the educational system. Most of our institutions present it as proven fact, such as TV nature shows, national parks, classrooms, movies, & other presumptions of settled science. But it is not. It is merely a theory, & does not really qualify as that.

Evolution has a central flaw. It is contrary to observed reality. The Theory of Evolution is basically a logical problem. It is a False Equivalence. They argue that since living things change within their genetic parameters, that they also change outside of their genetic parameters. Since moths can be different colors, perhaps they can also become a different creature entirely. This concept is repeated over & over ad nauseum, until the concept seem not only plausible, but accepted as proven fact.

The argument for evolution is based on alleged INCREMENTAL changes, that add up to big ones. But it ignores the HUGE problem of genetic parameters.. limits upon the changes that can be made.

For example, you can incrementally travel from New York to LA in daily, small steps. If you just took a few steps a day, it might take years for you to reach your destination. The ToE makes the false equivalence that since organisms can be observed taking 'small steps' in this way, they assume that the big changes are just added up small changes. But the genetic parameters are ignored. If you correlate many small steps in traveling between cities to interstellar travel, your arguments will fail, as the very restrictive limitation of gravity & distance is ignored. You cannot take many small steps to reach the moon.. Gravity will return you to the earth every time, UNLESS there is a mechanism to overcome gravity.

In the same way, DNA is like gravity. It will return you to the same organism EVERY TIME. It will allow horizontal variability, but it will NOT allow vertical changes in the basic genetic structure. That is observable, repeatable science.

The science of breeding or natural selection conflicts with the ToE. You do not observe increasing traits being available for organisms, but DECREASING. That is how you 'breed' a certain trait in an animal, or narrow the choices the offspring have. You do not add traits constantly, as is suggested by the ToE, but you reduce them, at times to the detriment of the organism, which can go extinct if it cannot adapt with the needed variability. A parent organism might have 50 possibilities of hair, skin, eye, or other cosmetic traits. By 'selecting' certain ones, either by breeding or by natural selection, you REDUCE the available options. THAT is observed reality, but the ToE claims just the opposite, that organisms are constantly making new genes to ADD variability. This is a flawed view with a basis in 19th century science, not what we know about in modern genetics. The high walls of genetics is the gravity that prevents vertical changes. It will allow the variability that remains within the dna, which contains millions of bits of information & possibilities. But there is NO EVIDENCE that any organism creates new genetic material or can turn scales in to feathers, or fins into feet. Those leaps are in light years, genetically speaking. It is impossible. It could not have happened, & we do not see it happening, now. All we observe is the simple, horizontal variability WITHIN the genetic parameters of the life form. Simply asserting that minor back & forth movement within the horizontal limits of variability does not prove the ability to incrementally build up to major changes in the genetic structure.

Show me HOW the chimp ancestor went from 20 pair genomes (or whatever), to 24.. or to the human 23 chromosomes. There is absolutely NO evidence that this CAN happen, much less that is somehow DID happen, millions of years ago or yesterday. Scientifically, it is impossible.

I welcome any rational discussion on this subject.

 

The ToE does not propose that chimps evolved i to humans
But that we had a common ancestor many years ago

Here is an article about how the number of chromosomes changed

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...omes_than_our_closest_primate_relatives_.html

The ToE is not proven fact
And as far as i can tell can never be entirely proven
Any more than much of what is in the Bible represents provable fact
But, ongoing research into biology, and archeology... Continues to reveal evidence that
Conforms to the patterns one would expect to see if the ToE was true.
And the ToE is the only theory that comes remotely close to understanding all of this research

But lets consider the alternative to the ToE...
You propose the alternative and lets subject your theory to meticulous inquiry
Where shall we start... The garden eden? Or noahs ark?
No doubt there is an expensive base of scientific evidence?

Or perhaps your point is the ToE is unproven, we know nothing at all?

 

It is clear you do not understand the effects of extremely long time frames or the ways in which evolution works. Thus is this a relatively pointless thread as you obviously have no intention of trying to find out.

Have fun stormin' the castle....

 

These are both dodges to the OP. You do not address any of the points made, but deflect with off topic distractions.

 

ASs there were no valid points to discuss, I believe my commentary covered them quite well. All the things you wish us to debate have been settled in science by time.

You expect geological time to take place in thousands instead of millions of years, it does not work that way no matter how hard you try.

 

BTW, i read your link. There is nothing suggested to HOW these splits happened, just dogmatically that they did. So the central problem is dismissed by assertion. A story is related as some kind of plausible explanation, but this is not science. That is speculation, & there is NOTHING in science that says this can, could, or did happen. It is pure conjecture.

And, your correction that i said humans came from chimps is inaccurate. I never said evolution claimed this, but that they both had a common ancestor.

 

If all you have is argument by dismissal, there is nothing more i can say in this debate with you. You do not refute or rebut my points, but merely dismiss them as 'invalid'. Prove it. Show with facts & reason HOW my points are invalid, else you are merely a false debater, with nothing but dismissal & assertion as your tools.

NONE of these things have been 'settled in science by time'. That is absurd. Show me. HOW does time provide any mechanism for the alleged changes & increases in complexity? That is merely smoke to hide behind, when the facts & evidence do not support your asserted beliefs.

 

I realize you expect me to provide the tetrabites of data that would be required to provide your requested "Proof"....but, having dealt with this form of purposeful ignorance in the past I prefer to give a synopsis and then watch as you ignore and dismiss it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_evolutionary_history_of_life

 

I will occasionally read through a link, but that is not my purpose here, to debate links. If you have a point to make, make it. If you want to support that point with a link, fine, it *might* add credibility. But my points were very simple & clear, & as usual, you avoid logical reasoning with snarky comments & ad hominem. I won't continue with this kind of back & forth, if this is all you have. I will be forced to ignore your posts as mere heckling, to distract from the points of the thread.

 

Fine I will repeat myself in an attempt to get you to understand:

You expect geological time to take place in thousands instead of millions of years, it does not work that way no matter how hard you try.

Evolution is not something we see in real time, it does not work that way. It must be put together from many ancient (as in millions of years) long dead animal changes and variations of form and function. There are multiple examples of species changing over time but, because they are extinct we must rely on animation and artistic rendering when attempting to show it for the masses. Unfortunately those who do not wish to accept the scientific representations of this reality tend to debunk the data because it is not a picture.
I have been in this discussion many times with individuals who prefer a magical explanation of life's diversity....it is getting quite boring and pointless because It has become clear the Dogma is stronger than the data.

And, I just don't care what you decide to believe.

 

I agree with OP. but when dealing with the subject you have to get your terms right. Otherwise they'll jump on the fact that you used the wrong term and miss the main point. According the ToE we evolved from ape like creatures, not chimps. Just a tidbit.

 

Human Chromosome 2 shows that it is a fusion of 2 chromosomes. It has telomeres in the middle. Telomeres are found on the ends of chromsomes. The chromosome also contains remnants of a 2nd centromere. Chromosomes normally only contain 1. It also contains many of the same genes found in other apes but in them they're found in 2 different chromosomes.

 

One issue is that you say the ToE is just a theory, not fact. People often confuse the word theory with hypothesis. "Scientific theory" is defined as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."

It's not just someone's assumptions, but rather a well tested concept. Saying ToE isn't fact is like saying the theory of gravity isn't fact. Or that the theory of displacement isn't fact. We know why we are held to this planet, and that when we put something in water, the water must go somewhere else. We don't know it because we just know it, these theories have been tested for hundreds of years in some cases.

Evolution has also been tested. Genetic material can be retrieved from fossils, carbon can be dated, and evolution itself can even be tested in a lab. Experiments have been done with lots of species, to manipulate their environments to see how the adapt, select and evolve. You can see it in horses, donkeys and mules if you need a quick example. Horses and donkeys are able to breed, but produce typically sterile offspring. typically being the key word. So if two fertile mules sneak through over time and breed, they create a new species which cannot breed with the horse or donkey. And it goes on from there. An interesting read about this can be found at www.denverpost.com/news/ci_6464853/mule-foal-fools-genetics-impossible-birth

It just takes one mutation to start a cascade effect. This article uses the term "hemiclonal transmission" which I was unfamiliar with. They found that the mother's genes cancelled out the male's genes. They go on to say that has only been previously found in amphibians not mammals. The point is when genes combine there are a lot of possibilities. Some species evolve based on adaptation to environment and some because of genetic mutation.

 

And that proves?

 

Gene mutations can be caused by chemicals in the environment, solar radiation, and by miscues in coding.

And actually human organisms are not genetically more complex than single celled organisms. What is considered a less complex animal, such as an Amoeba has more possible genetic combinations than human organisms.

So...genetic diversity is becoming less and less as an organism becomes what you might consider more complex.

 

Can you not read?

 

You should read the post more carefully. I am very much aware of the basic tenets of evolution, AND their terminology.

 

And this does not address the problem. You can define the genomes, & parse the chromosomes, but you cannot provide any evidence that the changes suggested by the ToE are even possible. We do not observe it. We cannot repeat it. It is impossible, scientifically, yet it is repeated loudly, as many do here, as fact. HOW did the human & chimp ancestor go from 20 or 26 or whatever, to 23 & 24? Nobody has seen this phenomenon. No one can repeat it. It is impossible to replicate, so HOW is this trumpeted about as a fact?

Without a mechanism to overcome the stern wall of genetics, like gravity, it will drag your 'small steps' toward the moon back to earth. You can move horizontally, in small steps, but you cannot move vertically.. the dna forbids it.

 

It doesn't matter how it happened. That's not the evidence that it happened. You don't need to catch someone stabbing someone to come to the conclusion that a dead person on the floor with a knife in their heart most likely died from being stabbed.

You're just shifting goal posts, ignoring things, etc.

Fact in science means an observation. We have observed this to be so in Human Chromosome 2 and thus it's a fact.

 

Seriously? You're saying, 'It happened, so that proves evolution'? Just because we can see the plainly obvious, does not mean we can explain how it happened. THAT is the point of science, to discover the HOW & WHY of the world around us, not to just declare some opinion about something & expect everyone to believe it.

What have you observed in Human Chromosome 2 that compels a conclusion of 'evolution did it?'

Of course it matters 'How it happened'. That is EXACTLY what we are trying to discover with science, observation, repetition, & experimentation. I don't need any evidence THAT it happened. We are here, & so is the world, so we know that it happened. We do NOT know the how or why, & that is what the science of origins is about.

I have shifted nothing, or ignored nothing. Stick with the science, & leave the assertions for other threads.

 

I'm done. You're a troll or purposefully willfully ignorant. Either way you're not worth wasting my time over.

 

Ok, if it is not just an assumption, but is a 'well tested concept', prove it. SHOW me the 'tests' that prove this 'concept' of increasing variability, complexity, & vertical movements in the genetic code. You are assuming that someone has proven this, but they have not. It is a house of cards, built upon assumption after assumption, with no scientific corroboration.

I think you are in over your head, & are just repeating things you believe. I don't believe you have studied this issue much, but are merely repeating the doctrines you have memorized in school. There have no doubt been THOUSANDS of experiments undertaken to prove evolution, with millions of generations of fruit flies, or other desperate attempts to validate the theory. ALL have failed. Not ONE proof of vertical genetic movement has taken place. No genomes have been added or subtracted to produce a viable new 'species'. That is all movies & sci fi. It is not real.

Don't you know that the issue of horses & cats, & the reproductive isolation that they illustrate merely show how IMPOSSIBLE evolution is? You do not get MORE traits, but fewer. In fact, the divergent child branches can become so far removed from the variability in the parent trunk that they lose the ability to reproduce, & they become locked in a taxonomic pattern.. tigers always produce more tigers.. the original variability that the parent species had was lost, dispersed to different child branches that retained only a portion of the original parent traits. These were not new species out 'creating' new traits, & diverging into different genetic groups. They were dead ends. And most of the dead ends go extinct. There are perhaps thousands of different horses, cats, & other such 'family' denominations that have dwindled to the current limited variations. We don't have the variability of horses that we once had. ..or cats.. or probably humans. New traits are not being created, Old ones are being lost! THAT is what the fossil record tells us, & what we observe in nature. Evolution as a system of genetic creation is a myth. There is no mechanism to overcome the genetic limitations the the DNA produces, & not one person has been able to present a single bit of evidence in the DECADES i have been debating this subject.

Mules are infertile. They are the sterile offspring of a horse & donkey, which suggests a common parent trunk, with the divergent horse & donkeys being the branches that eventually lost the variability found in the parent, & are now locked in a very slim chance of any original variability.

Mutations do not create new traits.. they only distort the existing ones. It cannot create an eye, or move cold blooded to warm, or make a heavy boned lizard turn to hollow bones & turn scales to feathers. These are AMAZINGLY complex components of life, that those in the 19th century thought were simple. But the genetic information to assemble these things are incredible. Genetics has opened up even more awe & amazement for living things.

 

I just completed my Master's Degree in zoology actually, so yes I've studied evolution. So you think slow changes, adaptations and mutations over millions and millions of years sounds far fetched, but you expect me to believe poof, all of these different species appeared magically at the same time? Along with fossils of long extinct things, to what? Throw us off? And evolution sounds crazy?

So if evolution is a hoax, then why are homo sapiens a different species than Neanderthal? Or do you think we are the same species? And yes, most of the studies I've read do look at plants, fruit flies, mice and other small animals. Not because they are nothing like us, but because they reproduce faster so you can see more immediate results. If you really want a list of peer reviewed journals, I can post a list.

In addition to science, there is common sense and personal observation. I cannot look into the eyes of a gorilla, or any ape for that matter, and not see something familial. I can't watch an orangutan unscrew the lid of a jar just as a human would and not see a link. More than 98% of a chimpanzee's DNA is identical to human beings. How do you explain that?

 

It always amazes me how you arm-chair "experts" pretend to know more than 150 years of research. Just because YOU don't understand it because you refuse to learn even the most basic facts of science, doesn't mean it is wrong. What really annoys me is you guys ask for all this very detailed "evidence" yet offer zilch when asked for evidence proving Creationism. I've said this before and I'll keep saying it, even if evolution was disproved tomorrow, Creationism would NEVER take its place because Creationism doesn't even qualify as a hypothesis much less a theory.

 

Mutations still cannot explain, scientifically, how increases in complexity can happen. Mutations merely alter the traits on a horizontal level, as i tried to illustrate with the 'incremental steps' comparison. 'Mutations' as the engine of evolution was a fine theory in its time, & has inspired many sci fi movies, & imaginings of new human traits & powers. But the observable, experimental data does not support this theory. Mutations do not & cannot produce more genomes, simultaneously so that a new species suddenly has the ability to reproduce itself. The limits of DNA is exactly like the force of gravity, as far as the moving around of genetic possibility. Lateral movement is possible, within the parameters of the dna. But to make the conclusive leap that they can incrementally add up to big changes is pure speculation, with NO scientific evidence. That is all assumed, & it cannot be demonstrated or observed. You can show simple variation, with no changes in the basic dna structure, but the tiniest change in the core parts of the dna destroys it.. it will not replicate itself, & you will not have a viable organism. So, yes, there are mutations, but no, they do not provide the mechanism for the claims of evolution.

You accuse me of 'shifting goal posts & ignoring things.' Now you call me a troll. I have made no emotional arguments, but have stuck with science. I replied to your vague rebuttal, which had no content that addressed the OP in any meaningful way. I don't blame you for quitting. The evidence you think is there, isn't. You believe that evolution is a plainly evident scientific fact, but i am presenting powerful evidence & arguments that it is not. I understand when you are trying to argue from a position of unsupported fantasy, it is hard to stay in the same league as with logic & common sense. But that is no reason to lash out at me, or blame me for the impotence of the arguments for this lame theory.

I don't care what you believe. I can only 'KNOW' what the evidence presents. It does not support the 'amoeba to man' theory of increasing complexity & evolution. Claiming one 'theory' sounds more plausible than another is not science. That is comparative religion.

Well, because they are not. 2 billion people today have the alleged 'neanderthal' gene in them. They are descendants of this tribe of humans, so how can they be a separate species or sub species, except by arbitrary definition? More & more taxonomists are admitting that neanderthals were merely another tribe of humans, with some narrowed traits of variability because of isolation. But many of those traits did break out of their limited area, so we have the genetic evidence, & are not left with wild speculations as to who they were. They were humans, that is all. They used tools, made music, & were no different than other human tribes, other than a few physical traits. IOW, no different than the taxonomy of humans today.

Would you claim any of the current people groups in the world today to be different species? Are they not all humans, with their variability reduced because of reproductive isolation? Once you 'blend' them again, they gain back the traits that were lost during their isolation period. That is the ONLY way you can get traits added to your gene pool, to dig deep into the trait bank in the dna, or to reproduce with those who have the desired traits already prominent, to increase the odds of getting the trait you are seeking. There is NOTHING in the dna that can create new traits.. it can only replicate old ones.

Arguments from authority are fallacies. Science is not concerned with the credentials of those making the claims, but on the facts & proofs of what they claim. If you have any peer reviewed proofs of the vertical changes suggested by the ToE, by all means, present them. But i already know you do not. They do not exist. No one has been able to produce ONE SINGLE proof that this can happen, did happen, or will happen. Many people BELIEVE that the ToE is 'settled science', but it is not. It is a fallacy of conjecture, false equivalency, & extrapolation based on faulty assumptions.

Well, you are equating a 'looks like' taxonomy with ancestry. That has been the major assumption, & the flaw that modern genetics has exposed. We now know that 'looks like' can be very deceiving, & things that look very similar can be very different, genetically. Humans & gorillas are very different, even if you think you see empathy in their eyes. They will not bring you flowers & candy, & you cannot interbreed with them. the core differences in their dna prohibits it.

BTW, i see 'common sense & personal observation' AS part of science. That is what makes it science.. we observe, we test, we repeat until the conclusion is plainly obvious. No mental gymnastics are needed, in genuine science. That is for the hucksters & charlatans, who try to dazzle with smoke & mirrors, obfuscate with technical jargon, & bluff with credentials. That is pseudo science. Real science relies on unemotional, plain facts, observation, & obvious conclusions.

That is the way of science, DD.. you know this. Maybe people believed the earth was flat or that 'spontaneous generation' was the explanation of origins for hundreds of years. Do we just accept the establishment explanation, with no question, & no skepticism?

I am making no arguments for creationism. I have repeated many times that i'm an origins 'agnostic', scientifically. I believe in God, but so do many evolutionists. I am a Truth Seeker, who is searching for reality, truth, & reason. I would love to 'know' the mysteries for the existence of the universe, but the empirical evidence provides no evidence for them. We are here. That we know. The 'how & why' comes down to basically 2 options:
1. Naturalistic processes, that we cannot see, define, observe.
2. Supernaturalistic processes, that we cannot see, define or observe.

NEITHER of the 'theories' of origins can explain the how or why we are here. This is very unsatisfying to human minds, so speculations are made. Thinking people can examine these speculations, to see if they hold water. Does it make any difference what you believe? Perhaps in the consequential ideology, which is based on the assumptions, but not in the basics of life. You still live, breathe, eat, sleep, & die. These are constants, regardless of a person's ideology. For the scientist, the goal is not to prop up a belief system, but to discover truth & reality. The philosophers & agenda driven ideologues can do the propaganda thing, but that is unbecoming of a scientist. Facts, repeatable evidence, & obvious, compelling logic are the tools of science. Mandates for conformity are for the ruling elite, to protect their turf, or to make people beholden to them & their magical powers.

I have been examining the claims of evolution, & have shown some serious problems with it as a 'theory' of origins. I do not care what people believe.. that is a personal choice. My goal here is to discover TRUTH, & dispel the popular notion of this hypothesis of origins as a proven scientific fact. It is not. It is no different than any other speculative conjecture as to 'how or why' we are here. I have no agenda. I'm not selling anything. I have nothing to gain either way for what anyone believes. This for me is an exercise in logic & science, nothing more.

Perhaps someday we will know. Perhaps someday definitive proof will become available as to the HOW & WHY we are here. But for now, science seems unable to help us in this quest, other than to dispel any superstitious notions. This to me, is what i see the ToE as.. a 19th century speculation on our origins. But it is flawed. It's basic assumptions are false. Life does not work in the way it claims. So for the scientist, it is back to the scientific method. We cannot force the conclusion, if the evidence does not support it. We are forced to come up with another hypothesis, that we can test & examine with science, to see if it is a possibility.