Entropy contradict Evolution

[Nasor]

It doesn't mean that "fit" WILL have a beneficial mutation.
Natural Selection is NOT a CONSIOUS mechansim that picks out animals. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

anyways selection a 'fit' animal doesn't mean beneficial mutation. You think you put someone in shape, inside a nuclear bomb radiation then it is going to be beneficial for him NO!

Mutation is random, meaning CHANCED. It DOESN"T have ANY CERTAINTY. Natural Selection cannot control Mutation. Natural Selectio cannot cause beneficial Mutation. Mutation cannot be controled. It is CHANCED

Now you’re giving answers to arguments that people haven’t even made. Of course beneficial mutations are rare – that’s why things evolve very slowly and gradually. No one ever disputed that, and I don’t think anyone ever suggested that natural selection ‘consciously’ selects for those with beneficial mutations. Natural selection simply means that any animals with beneficial mutations are more likely to survive and reproduce. No one here ever claimed anything else.

Here is a brief summary of how evolution works, since you don’t seem to be clear on it:

In every generation there is variation; the individuals are all somewhat different. Because of these variations, some of the individuals are more likely to survive than others. The ones that have traits that increase their likelihood of survival will be more likely to survive and reproduce, so the next generation will have a different distribution of traits than the previous generation – it will be more like the fittest members of the previous generation, and less like the least fit members of the previous generation (which died or were not able to reproduce because they weren’t very fit). Because of that, the genetic (and therefore physical) characteristics of the organism will change gradually from one generation to the next.

If you accept that
1) There is variation between individuals in each generation
2) Because of those differences some individuals are more likely to survive and reproduce than others
3) The traits (genes) of the offspring will be influenced by the traits (genes) of the parents

then evolution seems inevitable.

 

[Lemming3k]

I think thats very well explained nasor i just hope he understands, theres also another factor in evolution, mating, animals are always most attracted to those with different traits(opposites attract), the reason being passin their genes onto their offspring, for example it two parents have immunity to one disease but neither have immunity to another chances are the child will be the same, if they are both immune to opposite diseases the is a chance the child will be immune to both diseases, hence why a species can improve over generations.(yes theres also a chance it will be immune to neither but then its more likely to die out and less likely to pass on its genetics).

 

[MacM]

You are simply thinking that there has to be at least one Beneficial Mutation. There are RARELY any "natural" BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS in ANY GENERATION.

You do seem to be ignoring the mathematics above. What ONE breeding pair generating trillions of postive mutations in less than 1,000 years!

Wake up you are defeated at the technical level. Your arguements are only valid verbally for the purpose you are using them. To alter science by making unsupported claims of the signifigance of findings.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

You're doing a cracking job.
Keep on keeping on.
You have these guys on the run, and they are trying every trick (evolutionalist logic) in the book to discredit you character (as that is their only hope), but it only reveals their crumbling arguments.
Good video.

Spoken like a true expert. Well done, Jan, and thanks for adding to the substance of the arguments here. When 786 signs up a Chief Cheer Leader, I'm sure you'll be number 1 on his list.

786:

Lets list the problems with the theory.

1. Doesn't give us an answer to the question, how life began? (first cell)

Since it doesn't set out to do that, this is irrelevant.

2. The transition of Specie to different Specie depend on Mutation. And Mutation is Based on CHANCE. Thus the concept of evolving into a different specie depends of CHANCE. CHANCE of Beneficial variations.

Chance + natural selection. Remember?

3. Gaps in Fossil Records (HUGE GAPS)

Not a problem. See above.

4. Latest discoveries on Fossils are starting to refute with the part about Apes to Human part of the theory.

Which discoveries? References, please.

5. Extremely hard for Benficial Mutation to NATURALLY occur.

Irrelevant. You'd have to show it never happens.

6. Fossil Record shows suddenly abrupting animals, not transitional animals.

See explanation above.

7. Their is a CHANCE that their were NO Beneficial Mutations.

What are you talking about? Please explain.

8. Their is also a CHANCE that their weren't ENOUGH Beneficial Mutations.

For what? Where?

10. When a theory stands on CHANCE, then it has a HUGE CHANCE of being FALSE.

Not in this case. There is no alternative theory which fits the evidence. Is there?

 

[MacM]

7. Their is a CHANCE that their were NO Beneficial Mutations.

8. Their is also a CHANCE that their weren't ENOUGH Beneficial Mutations.

These entries are false.

Others have already given you many examples of Beneficial Mutations in viruses, etc. It is more evident there since they evolve much more rapidly than other species.

 

[b0urgeoisie]

@MacM
Who wrote the conclusion. The paper you indicate as Dr. Tyron's work only lists some of his work. The rest is commentary on what it means. I find the commentary to be so full of holes that I do not care to list them all yet. I will, however, write a response after I do a little more research. I am convinced that the author of the paper is intelligent. But, it seems clear, to me, that they are wrong on every count except for where they have posted the work of others. It looks like solid bricks held together with hopes and wishes for mortar.

 

[spidergoat]

Mutation is random, meaning CHANCED. It DOESN"T have ANY CERTAINTY. Natural Selection cannot control Mutation. Natural Selectio cannot cause beneficial Mutation. Mutation cannot be controled. It is CHANCED

You are quite wrong about this. Although mutations may be random, in fact natural selection has guided where on the genome those mutations will occur. The mechanism is redundancy, the most vital parts of the genome are protected from error by repetition, while "variable" parts of the genome are left to mutate as they will. Thus, natural selection has preferred organisms that are able to encourage beneficial mutations, while mitigating the effects of negative ones.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan Ardena

Well done, Jan, and thanks for adding to the substance of the arguments here. When 786 signs up a Chief Cheer Leader, I'm sure you'll be number 1 on his list.

Why do i need to add anything, he's doing a fine job all by himself.
I'm just enjoying seeing your wafer-thin arguments get cut to peices.

Oh! and Richard Dawkins was stuck for an answer, the edit only repeated the awkward scilence.

Well done 786, you've held this debate together very nicely, and you have forced the evolutionists to dig deep into their resources only to find out that it is for the best part...piffle. Thanks.

Jan Ardena.

 

[(Q)]

Why do i need to add anything, he's doing a fine job all by himself.

So, you somehow see the logic in his arguments aside from the fact he doesn't comprehend that which he is arguing?

AND you agree with him?

A cheerleader will often cheer the loudest when their team is losing.

 

[MacM]

Oh! and Richard Dawkins was stuck for an answer, the edit only repeated the awkward scilence.

False statement. He did answer in a lengthy and precise manner, only not to them as a sound bite, which can not be expected to be done in a comprehensible way. The editing of the tape shows the ethics of the creationists which are as non-existant as their beliefs.

The only one being cut to shreads is the ridiculus claims of the creationists. Your inability to understand that shows your qualifications to comment as well.

 

[b0urgeoisie]

Jan Ardena



Why do i need to add anything, he's doing a fine job all by himself.
I'm just enjoying seeing your wafer-thin arguments get cut to peices.

Oh! and Richard Dawkins was stuck for an answer, the edit only repeated the awkward scilence.

Well done 786, you've held this debate together very nicely, and you have forced the evolutionists to dig deep into their resources only to find out that it is for the best part...piffle. Thanks.

Jan Ardena.

Jan you sound like I did my freshman year. I have, as discussed in another thread, some formal religious training. Unfortunately, I believed evolution was a principle that was at odds with creationism. I had some strong support too. Thomas Jefferson, who was brilliant, is credited with saying (I am not going to dig up the quote so I'll paraphrase) - all animals on earth are exactly as god made them. Never has there been a new organism and none of God's creatures have ever gone extinct. (If any person feels ambitious enough you can find and post the actual quote.)

Obviously that idea is untrue. I used many of the same well intended arguments you and 786 have posted here. But, I promise that the principle of evolution is not paper thin. Next time you are speaking with a medical Doctor ask him/her about the last time he/she cut a tail of a baby. I'm sure you know someone who has an extra nipple. They may not talk about it. They may not even know that they have one; as many of them look like a large mole. But, extra nipples are so common that I am certain you know someone who has one. The funny thing about extra nipples on people is they are, almost without exception, on the milk line.
The milk line for people is the same as it is for other mammals. So, the extra nipple generally will be some where directly below a normal functioning nipple.
Gender is a trait that seems more religious than almost any other. Most religions place a great value on gender. Even so far as to say, each gender has a gender-specific role which has been decreed by God. However, pseudohermaphrodites will make any person question their traditions. Ph's are genetically boys. But, they are girls. In every way they are fully functioning little girls. Until they hit puberty. At puberty Jane has to be re-baptized as John. Because when the hormones kick in they become normal boys/men.
I understand your feelings. But, evolution cannot be undermined by any current evidence. So, it is up to you to decide if it is in conflict with your spiritual self. Your decision is your own. But the arguments against it are very poor and naive at best.

 

[786]

You are quite wrong about this. Although mutations may be random, in fact natural selection has guided where on the genome those mutations will occur. The mechanism is redundancy, the most vital parts of the genome are protected from error by repetition, while "variable" parts of the genome are left to mutate as they will. Thus, natural selection has preferred organisms that are able to encourage beneficial mutations, while mitigating the effects of negative ones.

This is the most interesting thing I heard. But unfortunately untrue. Natural Selection does not guide Mutation. Could you please provide me the source where you're getting this nonsense.

 

[b0urgeoisie]

GAPS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD ARE NOT THE SAME AS GAPS IN EVIDENCE SUPPORTING EVOLUTION.

You have all of the evidence for evolution resting underneath your hair. Your own body should point it out for you. If God created you and has no need for any scientific mechanism, then, why are you not yourself. You cannot live with your own DNA alone. When a woman provides an egg to be fertilized, it is not by itself. Quasi-organisms called mitochondria are there too. These mitochondria will be with you for your entire life. In most every cell in your body. They reproduce separate from you. Their aerobic respiration is the only means you have for producing energy in your body. They have circular DNA that is much like the DNA in Kingdom Monera. These mitochondria are just one example of our symbiotic relationship with other animals. Symbioses is a driving force in natural selection. Evolution is a fact. You can only question natural selection. Evolution accounts for the variations in genes. Natural selection inhibits reproduction for less fit phenotypes. Your phenotype is the physical expression of your genetic material.
We can recreate all of this in a lab. The only, half-believable, argument against evolution on this thread is the doubt that chance will drive the evolution machine. (The rest are trash.) In two weeks in the lab I could prove it to any person who is willing to learn. I can set up an environment that will select for a phenotype. Place organisms, probably a species of strep., and the most fit will be all that is left at the end. The rest will have remained static will be overcome by the most fit in the culture. It is a simple experiment. And it is true to life. The variation is there. It is the pressures in the system that select for or against gene sequencing.
Most mutations are neither good or bad. Most of them are non-sense. Which means the gene itself is destroyed by the mutation. And the organism will die before it is even born. Once in a while an electron will stray and you will get a mis-sense mutation. That means only a single Nitro-base will be substituted for. Point mutation may also be the result of an error in transcription or replication. So the code is very close and the phenotype is usually just changed. The change is small enough that the organism and the mutation will get a chance. If the change is good. It will out produce its counter-alleles. If it is bad then it will be overcome.
The second point to consider is timing. If the mutation occurs in your arm when you are 50 it will die with you. If the mutation occurs in a zygote, then follow the guide above.

 

[spidergoat]

This is the most interesting thing I heard. But unfortunately untrue. Natural Selection does not guide Mutation. Could you please provide me the source where you're getting this nonsense.

I don't know if the exact article is on the web, but I read it in New Scientist maganize.

I found a similar article here,
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995063

 

[Igor Trip]

This is the most interesting thing I heard. But unfortunately untrue. Natural Selection does not guide Mutation. Could you please provide me the source where you're getting this nonsense.

Mutations happen by chance. All young are different (due to sex and the random mixing of the parents genes) but then the harsh realities of life, decide what survives to breed and what does not. That is natural selection.

Evolution is about survival. What survives breeds what does not doesn’t. So only those with the genes to survive life’s challenges will produce the next generation.

 

[786]

Mutations happen by chance. All young are different (due to sex and the random mixing of the parents genes) but then the harsh realities of life, decide what survives to breed and what does not. That is natural selection.

Evolution is about survival. What survives breeds what does not doesn’t. So only those with the genes to survive life’s challenges will produce the next generation.

Yes, but this only creates diversity of the same species. For example many kinds of horses.

But in no way does it create a Whole Different Specie. Like Humans and Birds.

 

[MacM]

Jan you sound like I did my freshman year. I have, as discussed in another thread, some formal religious training. Unfortunately, I believed evolution was a principle that was at odds with creationism. I had some strong support too. Thomas Jefferson, who was brilliant, is credited with saying (I am not going to dig up the quote so I'll paraphrase) - all animals on earth are exactly as god made them. Never has there been a new organism and none of God's creatures have ever gone extinct. (If any person feels ambitious enough you can find and post the actual quote.)

Obviously that idea is untrue. I used many of the same well intended arguments you and 786 have posted here. But, I promise that the principle of evolution is not paper thin. Next time you are speaking with a medical Doctor ask him/her about the last time he/she cut a tail of a baby. I'm sure you know someone who has an extra nipple. They may not talk about it. They may not even know that they have one; as many of them look like a large mole. But, extra nipples are so common that I am certain you know someone who has one. The funny thing about extra nipples on people is they are, almost without exception, on the milk line.
The milk line for people is the same as it is for other mammals. So, the extra nipple generally will be some where directly below a normal functioning nipple.
Gender is a trait that seems more religious than almost any other. Most religions place a great value on gender. Even so far as to say, each gender has a gender-specific role which has been decreed by God. However, pseudohermaphrodites will make any person question their traditions. Ph's are genetically boys. But, they are girls. In every way they are fully functioning little girls. Until they hit puberty. At puberty Jane has to be re-baptized as John. Because when the hormones kick in they become normal boys/men.
I understand your feelings. But, evolution cannot be undermined by any current evidence. So, it is up to you to decide if it is in conflict with your spiritual self. Your decision is your own. But the arguments against it are very poor and naive at best.

I, as a very content, absolute disbeliever, want to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your post. It is the most sensible one by a believer I have seen. That doesn't mean my position has changed however -

PS: Thomas Jefferson also said, subsequent to a meteror shower, "I would rather believe that scientists lie than rocks fall from the sky".

 

[786]

There is a problem with the theory about gradual changes made by mutation. Everything cannot be created gradually for example an eye.

My question to you is. How did an eyeless creature later then "evolved" and got an eye?

 

[b0urgeoisie]

There is a problem with the theory about gradual changes made by mutation. Everything cannot be created gradually for example an eye.

My question to you is. How did an eyeless creature later then "evolved" and got an eye?

That one is easy. Eyes are the easiest transition to observe in nature. If you take animals and list them in order of complexity. You can see the change.

Sponges ---no eyes of any kind many will die in even the smallest amount of light
Jellyfish ---light sensitive but no eyes
Rotifers ----eye-spots
worms -----(this group is unique. many have no need for eyes so they have none. some have need and, therefor, have increasingly complex ocular regions.
insects and crabs ----eyes
starfish ----this group is very complex. second only to vertebrates. but mostly blind. they have no need for eyes as they can eat anything they crawl on so they crawl and eat.
vertebrates -----this group includes birds. enough said!

I dropped the Latin for these phylum. I hope the explanations are not offensively simple.

 

[786]

You haven't answered the question. How do you gradually make an eye?

You just listed animal with or without eyes. I have no interest in that.

I want to know how do you gradually get an eye?