Darwin's Theory is False

[snake river rufus]

SRR asked about my pet bullfrog.

Woody says: I know because I caught the bullfrog as an intended pet, but it soon died before I had a chance to feed it anything. I caught it along a polluted city creek -- I don't know how that frog managed to survive there. The creek was nasty as an open sewar, and that was one skinny looking frog.

Anyway after his untimely death, my next door neighbor suggested we do a dissection. So we went in and cut his stomach open. We found four to five cigarette butts in there and a dead wasp. What a diet! The frog was dieing of nicotene poisoning when I caught him.

And none of that proves the frog ate the cigarette butts of his own accord

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Go to a library and find this book or just order it:
Natural selection in the wild

some random refs:

Speciation (from breakthrough of the year science 2005)

S. Bearhop et al., "Assortative Mating as a Mechanism for Rapid Evolution of a Migratory Divide," Science 310, 502 (2005)

P. Andolfatto, "Adaptive Evolution of Non-Coding DNA in Drosophila," Nature 437, 1149 (2005)

V. A. Lukhtanov, "Reinforcement of Pre-Zygotic Isolation and Karyotype Evolution in Agrodiaetus Butterflies," Nature 436, 385 (2005)

T. Malausa et al., "Assortative Mating in Sympatric Host Races of the European Corn Borer," Science 308, 258 (2005)

P.F. Colosimo et al., "Widespread Parallel Evolution in Sticklebacks by Repeated Fixation of Ectodysplasin Alleles," Science 307, 1928 (2005)

G. Gibson, "The Synthesis and Evolution of a Supermodel," Science 307, 1890 (2005)

N. Gompel et al., "Chance Caught on the Wing: Cis-Regulatory Evolution and the Origin of Pigment Patterns in Drosophila," Nature 433, 481 (2005)

T.C. Mendelson and K.L. Shaw, "Sexual Behaviour: Rapid Speciation in an Arthropod," Nature 433, 375 (2005)

Influenza
D. Normile, "Genetic Analyses Suggest Bird Flu Virus Is Evolving," Science 308, 1234 (2005)


Understanding bacterial evolution for high school students graduated a few decades ago:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/bergstrom_01

 

[SkinWalker]

Simple adaptation and macro evolution are very distinct things.

Evolution is change over time. Macro/micro are largely buzzwords used by creationist nutters.

Believing that creatures evolve and transition into other species, without actually witnessing it, requires more faith than any other religion on the face of planet earth.

Except that it *is* witnessed. The evidence is in the VERY CLEAR FOSSIL RECORD. The morphologies of species show gradual change over time. NOT A SINGLE FOSSIL IS OUT OF PLACE.

It's witnessed in the genetic record as well. Of course, if you refuse to obtain an education; allow yourself to be passed over for an education; allow your superstitions to override your critical thinking; etc. you'll never see the evidence.

 

[James R]

Woody:

Compare.

---
Guthrie says: Oh wow! Woody's tests have been fulfilled! By bacteria evolving antibiotic resistance! Who would have thought it!

Woody says: Is this genetic or is it just tolerance to poisons being developed by individuals? Animals and humans have a pretty remarkable ability to develop tolerance. Consider Harry Houdini -- he acclimated himself in ice-cold water to overcome hypothermia.
---

To:

---

Oh wow! Woody's tests have been fulfilled! By bacteria evolving antibiotic resistance! Who would have thought it!

Is this genetic or is it just tolerance to poisons being developed by individuals? Animals and humans have a pretty remarkable ability to develop tolerance. Consider Harry Houdini -- he acclimated himself in ice-cold water to overcome hypothermia.
---

The latter is much easier to follow, if you ask me.

 

[Nisus]

Except that it *is* witnessed. The evidence is in the VERY CLEAR FOSSIL RECORD.

I havn't really looked into fossil record info since 2000, you have some link? Last time I checked into the info it didn't seem too convincing. I enjoy the "theory" of evolution, in the concept of the DNA's rapid mutation, but I when I was doing research on the subjects I couldn't find any thing I would take as factual. Since theories were relatively new, the ones I was looking into.

Call DNA a creation or call it a phenomenon, either way it's inspiring. I'd just like a better witness, if u will. Before i believe it.

 

[SkinWalker]

Here's the link: Your local university library. If you want some citations that are helpful, let me know. I have a list somewhere, but going to bed right now.

 

[Woody]

And none of that proves the frog ate the cigarette butts of his own accord

I caught the frog in a reed thicket, I had him in my possession the whole time, and nobody else knew about him but me. Nobody else had access to him and the cigarette butts were odviously floaters from the run-off that goes into the creek (no ash or tobacco remaining on them). They were not full strength in nicotene, probably floated a while and then washed up on the creek bank. Maybe the wind blew them around, and the frog thought they were bugs, who knows?

What do you think happened instead? Did somebody stuff him full of cigarette butts, go into the snaky marsh, and plant him there just for me to find him?

American Bull Frog

PS: The bull frog earns it's name by the deep, loud bellowing sounds it makes at night. It's jump is remarkable. I've seen a full-sized bull frog jump around 10 feet or more in a single jump. I caught a large one under an old rotten log beside a pond. It took every bit of both hands to hold him around the stomach.

In that same pond I had an encounter with a giant water beetle:

His bite is quite painful as I found out.

I used to swim underwater and catch painted turtles by looking up from underneath the water.

Painted Turtle

One of my painted turtles was quite fast -- a friend of mine took second place at a New Jersey turtle race. He was barely beaten by a snapping turtle about 50 times his size:

Snapping Turtle

In the same nook of the pond I caught a baby snapping turtle no larger than a quarter (American currency). My cousin raised him in an aquarium until he was large, then transferred him to a 55 gallon drum.

As you can probably tell I was quite a nature lover in my youth.

 

[Woody]

No.



If you want final proof read your holy fucking bible. You are criticizing a scientific theory and you ask for final proof? Dam, fuck me. Final proof. you crack me up.

The abstract on the article you provided isn't very clear. It must have been written by a lawyer.

What does the article tell you then? There are two types of lizard competing in an island environment (one was introduced), and there were variations in vegetation height. The resident lizard changed it's diet from short vegetation to taller vegetation and the vegetation heights changed. Somehow the resident lizard's survival was altered, and it did not do as well when placed back in its original enviroment. It is inferred (I guess) that a genetic change was involved rather than any other factors. Could you please clarify this because I do not have access to the entire article.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

The abstract on the article you provided isn't very clear. It must have been written by a lawyer.

No, a biologist. Did you think biology was easy because high school text books were 'easy'. Ever wondered why it takes so long to finally get a PhD. Furthermore nature is messy.

Let's try to find something more simple then. Have you found anything interesting in the other links I gave you? No?


What about some salmon studies?

Evolution Int J Org Evolution. 2005 Jul;59(7):1560-9.
Selection on increased intrinsic growth rates in coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. Sundstrom LF, Lohmus M, Devlin RH.
Substantial evidence from the animal kingdom shows that there is a trade-off between benefits and costs associated with rapid somatic growth. One would therefore expect growth rates under natural conditions to be close to an evolutionary optimum. Nevertheless, natural selection in many salmonid species appears to be toward larger size and earlier emergence from spawning redds, indicating a potential for increased growth rate to evolve. We tested how selection for genetic variants (growth hormone transgenic coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, with more than doubled daily growth rate potential relative to wild genotypes) depended on predator timing and food abundance during the early period of life (fry stage). In artificial redds, fry of the fast-growing genotypes showed a highly significant developmental shift, emerging from gravel nests approximately two weeks sooner, but with an 18.6% reduced survival, relative to wild-genotype fry. In seminatural streams, fry of the fast-growing genotypes suffered higher predation than those of wild genotypes when predators were present at the time of fry emergence, but this difference was less pronounced when food was scarce. In streams where predators were introduced after emergence, fry survived equally well regardless of food availability. Surviving fry grew faster in habitats provided with more food, and fast-growing genotypes also grew faster than wild genotypes when predators arrived late and food was abundant. Fewer fish migrated downstream past a waterfall when food availability was high and in the presence of predators, and wild-genotype fry were more likely to migrate than fry of the fast-growing genotypes. After being returned to the experimental streams after migration, fast-growing genotypes survived equally well as those of the same genotypes that did not migrate, whereas migrating wild genotypes experienced higher mortality relative to those of the same genotypes that did not migrate. Comparisons of growth rates between siblings retained under hatchery conditions and those from habitats with the fastest growth in the experimental stream revealed that growth rates were similar for wild genotypes in both environments, whereas the fast-growing genotypes in the streams only realized 90% of their growth potential. The present study has shown that a major shift in developmental timing can alter critical early stages affecting survival and can have a significant effect on fitness. Furthermore, ecological conditions such as food abundance and predation pressure can strongly influence the potential for fast-growing variants to survive under natural conditions. The large-scale removal of many predatory species around the world may augment the evolution of increased intrinsic growth rates in some taxa.

Evolution Int J Org Evolution. 2005 May;59(5):1104-18.

Concurrent natural and sexual selection in wild male sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka.

Hamon TR, Foote CJ.


Concurrent natural and sexual selection have been inferred from laboratory and comparative studies in a number of taxa, but are rarely measured in natural populations. Because the interaction of these two general categories of selection may be complex when they occur simultaneously, empirical evidence from natural populations would help us to understand this interaction and probably give us greater insight into each separate episode as well. In male sockeye salmon, sexual selection for larger body size has been indicated in both deep and shallow water habitats. However, in shallow habitats male sockeye are generally smaller and less deep-bodied than in deep habitats, a difference that has been ascribed to natural selection. We measured concurrent natural and sexual selection in two years on breeding male sockeye salmon with respect to body size, body shape, and time of arrival to the breeding grounds. Natural selection was variable in effect and sexual selection was variable in intensity in these two years. The patterns of selection also appear to be interdependent; areas where predation on spawning adults is not intense have yielded different patterns of sexual selection than those measured here. It appears that some of the body shape differences in sockeye salmon associated with different spawning habitats, which were previously attributed to selective mortality, may be a result of different patterns of sexual selection in the different habitats. Total selection resulting from the combination of both natural and sexual selection was less intense than either natural or sexual selection in most cases. Measurement of concurrent selection episodes in nature may help us to understand whether the pattern of differential sexual selection is common, and whether observed patterns of habitat-related differentiation may be due to differences in sexual selection.

Snakes and islands

Evolution Int J Org Evolution. 2005 Jan;59(1):226-33.

Rapid and repeated origin of insular gigantism and dwarfism in Australian tiger snakes.

Keogh JS, Scott IA, Hayes C.



It is a well-known phenomenon that islands can support populations of gigantic or dwarf forms of mainland conspecifics, but the variety of explanatory hypotheses for this phenomenon have been difficult to disentangle. The highly venomous Australian tiger snakes (genus Notechis) represent a well-known and extreme example of insular body size variation. They are of special interest because there are multiple populations of dwarfs and giants and the age of the islands and thus the age of the tiger snake populations are known from detailed sea level studies. Most are 5000-7000 years old and all are less than 10,000 years old. Here we discriminate between two competing hypotheses with a molecular phylogeography dataset comprising approximately 4800 bp of mtDNA and demonstrate that populations of island dwarfs and giants have evolved five times independently. In each case the closest relatives of the giant or dwarf populations are mainland tiger snakes, and in four of the five cases, the closest relatives are also the most geographically proximate mainland tiger snakes. Moreover, these body size shifts have evolved extremely rapidly and this is reflected in the genetic divergence between island body size variants and mainland snakes. Within south eastern Australia, where populations of island giants, populations of island dwarfs, and mainland tiger snakes all occur, the maximum genetic divergence is only 0.38%. Dwarf tiger snakes are restricted to prey items that are much smaller than the prey items of mainland tiger snakes and giant tiger snakes are restricted to seasonally available prey items that are up three times larger than the prey items of mainland tiger snakes. We support the hypotheses that these body size shifts are due to strong selection imposed by the size of available prey items, rather than shared evolutionary history, and our results are consistent with the notion that adaptive plasticity also has played an important role in body size shifts. We suggest that plasticity displayed early on in the occupation of these new islands provided the flexibility necessary as the island's available prey items became more depauperate, but once the size range of available prey items was reduced, strong natural selection followed by genetic assimilation worked to optimize snake body size. The rate of body size divergence in haldanes is similar for dwarfs (h(g) = 0.0010) and giants (h(g) = 0.0020-0.0025) and is in line with other studies of rapid evolution. Our data provide strong evidence for rapid and repeated morphological divergence in the wild due to similar selective pressures acting in different directions.

 

[Cris]

Human Evolution

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

It's like following a child's dot picture puzzle. I.e. it's child's play.

 

[Woody]

S/M

On "survival of the fittest bacteria" with regard to antibiotics you definately have a pretty strong point here.

Now that someone has defined a "fit trait" the conclusion makes sense. Unfortunately I was misinformed by others on this forum that claim you can not know what a "fit trait" is even after the fact (refer to the poll):

reference poll

The poll does not tell you this explicitly, but I asked directly to define a "fit trait" and nobody had an example or a definition.

-------------------------------------------------------------

S/M said:

Let's try to find something more simple then. Have you found anything interesting in the other links I gave you? No?

Woody says: I'd rather stick with the first example you gave -- the one with the lizard. I'm not a PHD biologist, but I'm capable of understanding if you could answer the questions I asked. I have searched the internet and I can not get this article without paying a fee. I asked you the questions because you proposed the article -- I guess I'm cheap, eh?

I ask again:

What does the article tell you then? There are two types of lizard competing in an island environment (one was introduced), and there were variations in vegetation height. The resident lizard changed it's diet from short vegetation to taller vegetation and the vegetation heights changed. Somehow the resident lizard's survival was altered, and it did not do as well when placed back in its original enviroment. It is inferred (I guess) that a genetic change was involved rather than any other factors. Could you please clarify this because I do not have access to the entire article.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Whatever woody. It's not my problem you can't get the article. You can get it you know. It will just take you effort (go to a library where they have 'science'). And maybe that is exactly what you need to do right now. For once put some effort in your thinking and actions.

You broke the rules. You invented the criteria of final proof after all other criteria were satisfied.

I'm not playing with you anymore.

I've given plenty of references in which natural selection is decribed in the wild. Natural selection has been tested. It has been published in peer-reviewed journals. Who gives a fuck honestly if woody has to approve of the content of a peer-reviewed article. Specialists in the field have already criticized the papers based on method and content.

conclusion:

Natural selection is not a tautology - logic proves that.
Natural selection does exist in the wild - research proves that.

What is there further to discuss?

Whether you believe it?

 

[Woody]

S/M:

I'm not playing with you anymore.

Woody: That's just as well. I'm glad you set the record straight -- sour disposition in all -- as others on this forum could not.

As I said in the beginning -- all I asked for was a definition of "survival of the fittest" that's provable in logic. Look what I got instead. It's amazing that it's taken literally hundreds of posts to get there. Nobody proposed an example -- just the same old B.S. and name calling. Pretty poor.

That is how this whole misunderstanding began, from misinformation about evolution on this forum -- but what should I expect from athiests on a religion forum anyway?


S/M:

For once put some effort in your thinking and actions.

Woody: Excellent suggestion. I can do the job much more efficiently on my own without all the riff-raff chiding in.

 

[Huwy]

I caught the frog in a reed thicket, I had him in my possession the whole time, and nobody else knew about him but me. Nobody else had access to him and the cigarette butts were odviously floaters from the run-off that goes into the creek (no ash or tobacco remaining on them). They were not full strength in nicotene, probably floated a while and then washed up on the creek bank. Maybe the wind blew them around, and the frog thought they were bugs, who knows?

What do you think happened instead? Did somebody stuff him full of cigarette butts, go into the snaky marsh, and plant him there just for me to find him?

We see people on the planet Earth, nobody else had access to us.
We are not full strength in intelligence, probably lied for thousands of years and then washed up on the internet.
Maybe the comets brought life to earth (living bacteria have been found in comets that have hit), maybe the first amino acids were created over the volcano's (this has been recreated in experiments i can find if you like),
who knows?

What do you think happened instead Woody? Did somebody stuff us full of brains, come to planet earth, and plant us here just so we could go "Wow! I wonder why we are here?"
Just for us to find that "god"??

 

[Ophiolite]

Woody, what you refer to as the same old name calling was a consequence of your intransigent, unrepentant ignorance: a persistent refusal to investigate the facts, coupled with an expectation of being spoon fed, on your terms, in your time. Full justification for name calling in my book.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

As I said in the beginning -- all I asked for was a definition of "survival of the fittest" that's provable in logic. Look what I got instead. It's amazing that it's taken literally hundreds of posts to get there. Nobody proposed an example -- just the same old B.S. and name calling. Pretty poor.

From your first 'technical' paper in your first post:

Natural selection (or survival of the fittest) must be recognized for the true character of its mechanism: it is a completely random, infinitely changing, "filtering/culture media" process where the end result is the genome that survives (or prospers).

We just heard Darwin say that natural selection is not random but describes it as the preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.

In what way is the selection of certain variations and the rejection of others random?

Why would we take you even seriously. You read someone's website. You haven't even read Darwin's work. I gave you a link to 'the origin on species'. Did you even bother to read anything in it? No.

I was polite enough to point out already 2 idiotic mistakes in the 'technical' paper you are heavily relying on. I answered all your questions. What are you trying to do here?

Telling lies will get you into hell you know.

I think we already did what you asked for in respect to pointing out the error in 'survival of the fittest'

Is it our fault you disregard what we post? That is pretty poor behaviour woody. Quoting a website that is full of the same old lying shit. Asking us to disprove something that darwin never proposed.

 

[Lemming3k]

It's amazing that it's taken literally hundreds of posts to get there. Nobody proposed an example -- just the same old B.S. and name calling. Pretty poor.

Well we didnt really expect anything else from you.
Just so you know for future reference, to expect what you seem to term a reasonable discussion in a much shorter time frame, dont start the thread with the title stated as fact (Darwins Theory is False) with failure to prove such, and dont start the first post with the condescending attitude of 'im right you're wrong'.
I have a feeling i've advised you along these lines before.

what should I expect from athiests on a religion forum anyway?

If you're suggesting they dont belong here, then by that reasoning should christians be allowed to dabble in science?

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Let's have a summary so we can see where we stand:

Darwin's theory of evolution is logically flawed. I'm not the first to bring it up. I hope everyone that believes it is prepared for their eternity. The "cause" of evolution has not really been proven.

http://www.tdtone.org/darwin/Darwin1.htm

http://www.tdtone.org/evolution/TDTns.htm

Websites were full of mistakes and lies. They were claiming to disprove evolution, but all they did was disprove something they claimed was evolution. In fact it was just raping the theory of evolution and substituting it with a turd. I have shown quotes from 'on the origin of species' that directly show that the 'technical' paper was indeed just making things up and subsequently disproving them. You never proved that assessment wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

The phrase is a metaphor, not a scientific description; and it is not generally used by biologists, who almost exclusively use natural selection in preference. Some have argued that it is a tautology, since if "fitness" is measured in terms of survival, the phrase becomes "survival of the survivors". Others argue that it is not a tautology, but a biological definition of "fitness".

Conclusion: biologist don't use survival of the fittest. Why? Because it is not an accurate biological term. Feel free to be an ass and continue to disprove it in order to discredit evolution. It's the most retarded thing you could do ever. There is no nice way to tell you this.

The author of the first two technical papers is waiting for someone to provide a satisfactory definition of "natural selection." He has been waiting years for someone to accomplish this.

I did, feel free to email him the link to this thread. Btw. Darwin has been waiting 150 years to be proven wrong. He is still waiting in his grave.

You'll probably say I don't understand Darwin's theory of evolution (just because I do not agree with you about it). In my opinion it's just a matter of "your faith" in Darwinism.

We have seen you do not grasp the basics of the theory of evolution. Otherwise you could have refuted the first two 'technical' papers yourself.


I did proved links to more than a dozen peer reviewed papers (papers which you really could call technical). Obviously to you they are all based on blind faith because they have no value to you. An obscure website that is so blatantly obviously lying has authority though. It seems to me that you live in an upside down world. Don't go to close to the edge, you might fall off.

 

[Mythbuster]

Well, even the biggest of opposers of 'evolution' seems to admit that there is something called 'microevolution'.Bcoz there is proof that it happens since we see it happening in front of our eyes.Thats how pests put up resistance against pesticides over a few generation.
Now we dont disbelief it because we see it happening in front of us.But my question is ,is it so difficult to imagine that how millions of years of microevolution will bring about a sigmnificant change which we call evolution?Is it so difficult to imagine that 1+1+1+........... a million times add up to a very large number called million?

Evolution is based on based on evidence.It may get refined and probably will get refined in future but it will never be replaced by non-evolution.

 

[Nisus]

As I said in the beginning -- all I asked for was a definition of "survival of the fittest" that's provable in logic. Look what I got instead. It's amazing that it's taken literally hundreds of posts to get there. Nobody proposed an example -- just the same old B.S. and name calling. Pretty poor.

That is how this whole misunderstanding began, from misinformation about evolution on this forum -- but what should I expect from athiests on a religion forum anyway?

lol well said.