Entropy contradict Evolution

[786]

This is a two way street. So listen to us as well. Don't be so cock sure of yourself for it damn sure isn't justified.




You seem to have a total lack of understanding of mutation and DNA. Be it by accident, chance or whatever, man now routinely changes (mutates by will) the DNA chain as is already producing modified creatures and crops.

To suggest that such changes not only have not happened by chance over millions of years but cannot change creatures, is simply to ignore where science actually is today.



True but what your response fails to recognize is that it creates a animal with slighly different, trates, characteristics, etc and subsequent chance changes in its offspring make further changes.



Big words but no actual worth to them. The greatest propaganda is the arguement of an Allah (or any God). They repeatedly show a disjunctive chain of change - i.e. from a fish to a mammal, etc and do not show the millions of slow changes which have been found presenting a very good record of transition.

Are there gaps? You bet. Are there still questions? You bet. Is Allah or Gods the answer - No damn way.



OK. I watched. Would you like a frank opinion? Probably not but since you seem to like to give yours I'll give mine.

Interesting film. A lot of good facts. Nice photographry. Unfortunately it is FILLED with propaganda and basless assumptions and deliberate distortions of the true results of scientific study.

To illustrate my point. You begin by saying it is fact and proven, etc and that it is not a biased program. What a crock of crap. Are you blind or simply brain dead?

Within the first 5 minutes.

1 - It asserts proof that the universe and life are the work of a "Plan", a "Design" by an all powerful Creator and that that creator is Allah. No such proof is ever given in the entire film, much less the first 5 minutes.

2 - It distorts learning and change as being refutation of science and proof of God and not as normal progress in our learning and understandings.

3 - It starts within the first 5 minutes by making a senseless character assination of Darwin. It mentions that Karl Marx admired Darwin and dedicated a book to him and wrote that he admired Darwin.

What the hell does that have to do with Darwins Theory? I see nothing saying that Darwin admired Karl Marx. If it did I might have a different opinion of Darwin but that still would have absolutely no bearing on Darwins Theory.

It is propaganda of the worst kind pure and simple - Character assination, not even by association but by innuendo. Arrrggghhhh!

You believe what the hell you choose. It is your perogative. I choose to believe we came from apes. Not because Darwin says so or that we have compiled a complete record of transistions but because it beats the hell out of believing in Allah or any God.

Because while Miller in 1953 may not have created man from inorganic material he did indeed create organic material from inorganic material. Becuase amino acids and such building blocks of life have been found in great clouds thoughout the universe. Because insspite of the distortion of the record and capitalizing on a few errors along the way there is far more evidence for evolution (by whatever means) than for anyother process.

I know these words are falling on deaf ears and hence don't be disappointed when I choose to not participate further in this debate. Can I be wrong. You
bet but if I am and your are right guess what. I'll stand before your Allah or any God and say "kiss my ass". I don't want you and I don't need you.

Ok.

Consider the part about Allah as an opinion. But what about the damn facts. The shark's structure about some hundred million years old is the same as it is today.Same with the ant, turtle. The eye of the trilobite is the same as the eye of a bee.

Again I ask this question. the concept of "simple to complex". Why the hell do trilobite have a more complex eye than us? Complete BULLSHIT.

Where the hell are the transitions form. You have evidence please provide it. The movie was split into three parts, I am guessing that you saw only the first part of the video.

You talk about mutation. Did you see the reaction of RICHARD DAWKINS when he was asked about MUTATION? HE DIDN'T SAY CRAP. HE IS ONE OF THE MOST KNOWN EVOLUTIONIST AND WELL RESPECTED. WHY THE HELL DIDN'T HE HAVE AN ANSWER?

Did you see the part about the FOSSIL RECORD? Major problem for the theory.

And the part about the Mutation.

you said "True but what your response fails to recognize is that it creates a animal with slighly different, trates, characteristics, etc and subsequent chance changes in its offspring make further changes."

If someone cuts your arms. Are your children going to be armless? If your answer is YES then go and study science on INHERITENCE. IF your answer is NO. then you just lied.

Both ways you're wrong.

Did you see the part about the SKULLS? All was dismissed but people still consider it as evidence. Why? Because of the Media. Isn't that propoganda or what? Why believe in the Skulls when they were DISMISSED AS EVIDENCE?

 

[MacM]

Ok.

Consider the part about Allah as an opinion. But what about the damn facts. The shark's structure about some hundred million years old is the same as it is today.Same with the ant, turtle. The eye of the trilobite is the same as the eye of a bee.

You forgot the cockroach. He too has been around millions of years. They are damn hard to kill BTW. They also can withstand many factors more of radiation than can man.

Again I ask this question. the concept of "simple to complex". Why the hell do trilobite have a more complex eye than us? Complete BULLSHIT.

Not bullshit at all. Have you ever looked through one of those eyes. I have (artificial man made model of course) and it is damn near worthless for any creature other than a damn bug that wants to see hundreds of images from almost 180 degrees all around. It is like looking at a large wall made of TV's with each TV having its own camera at different angles.

It isn't superior at all - except for the applications using it which require directional sensing of preditors such as birds zooming in, etc. You damn sure couldn't drive a car safely or do other things that man and other creatures with two eyes having depth perception do.

Where the hell are the transitions form. You have evidence please provide it. The movie was split into three parts, I am guessing that you saw only the first part of the video.

Well you guessed wrong once more. I watched the whole damn thing on purpose just to avoid such arguement. Now I watched and what I saw was a distortion of the truth. Like I said there are gaps but unlike your film there are in fact millions of incremental changes clearly shown in the fossil record. Before you argue otherwise I only suggest that you take the trouble to learn the truth and study the evidence for yourself and stop taking a biased point of view as being representative of the truth.

It is still a matter of judgement evolution certainly can't be claimed proven. But the actual evidence is more than just strongly suggestive. You still have to decide. But you can't do that looking at only biased material.

You talk about mutation. Did you see the reaction of RICHARD DAWKINS when he was asked about MUTATION? HE DIDN'T SAY CRAP. HE IS ONE OF THE MOST KNOWN EVOLUTIONIST AND WELL RESPECTED. WHY THE HELL DIDN'T HE HAVE AN ANSWER?

Two responses.

1 - I saw a question for which there may not be an immediate response to but require some thought to be informative.

2 - I saw what I clearly believed looked like a film loop which replayed his initial hesitation over and over to make it appear he was stumped. I don't know if he gave answer or not but I suspect he did and it was deliberately left out of the biased presentation and this exagerated film loop was interjected instead.

Further when did this interview take place? Much has been accomplished in this area in the past decade, it may now be that a much quicker and direct answer would be forth coming.

Nopt having an answer doesn't equate to there being no answer. That is why we do science to discover. If we knew everything there would be no need for science.

I will be pursuing this via Google search for him and his work to see If I am correct on this.

Did you see the part about the FOSSIL RECORD? Major problem for the theory.

I see no such major problem. I only see work to be done. I see distortion over a few misinterpreted finds and saber rattling over a few frauds. Those do not represent the state of knowledge by any stretch of the imagination. Where literally a handful of such example were latched onto and distorted there importance, there are literally millions of finds and artifacts which support the transitions of creature over time on earth.

And the part about the Mutation.

you said "True but what your response fails to recognize is that it creates a animal with slighly different, trates, characteristics, etc and subsequent chance changes in its offspring make further changes."

If someone cuts your arms. Are your children going to be armless? If your answer is YES then go and study science on INHERITENCE. IF your answer is NO. then you just lied.

Watch it. Distorting the meaning of mutation to mean mutilation and then calling me a liar don't cut it. Mutation in this discussion means the known affect of altering the DNA chain. We are doing it all the time and it does indeed produce positive change in creatures and crops. Your only arguement against it would be to claim it has never happened in millions of years by accident. That arguement would be extremely hollow.

Now can we screw up a creature by making such mutations? Hell yes. I can also put sugar in my gas tank or I can put nitro in it. One affect is positive the other is destructive. If I produce a destructive change it will die out and cease to be reproduced. If I create a positive change its reproduction adds to the reproduction awaiting another postive change. That is called evolution.

Not changing a monkey into an elephant, etc.

Both ways you're wrong.

Dream on.

Did you see the part about the SKULLS? All was dismissed but people still consider it as evidence. Why? Because of the Media. Isn't that propoganda or what? Why believe in the Skulls when they were DISMISSED AS EVIDENCE?

Hardly a point here. As stated above those errors and frauds are not the basis of evolution. They are at best a handful of errors or frauds. Compared to the actual record evolution stands unchallenged by any other explanation.

Finally to the crediability of the film. At no time did they identify the narrator, editors, there affiliations or qualifications. Hmmmm. Very scientific, very reliable source of information.

 

[Repo Man]

786, thank you for the most simple minded attack on evolutionary theory I have seen in quite some time.

I suggest you take on those heretics who propose a heliocentric solar system. The sun is what rises and sets dammit, not the Earth!

 

[MacM]

Here is some clarification of Dawkins actual views vs the distortions made in your film.

Here is a link. The attachment is a partial cut and paste.

http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Books/climb.shtml

 

[DeeCee]

The shark's structure about some hundred million years old is the same as it is today.Same with the ant, turtle. The eye of the trilobite is the same as the eye of a bee.

What! You mean that evolution arrived at the optimum morphology for a large aquatic predator 100 million years ago? Gee I guess the fact that sharks are still sharks tends to indicate that evolution is progressing as expected!

Evolution 101, You can't improve on perfection.

BTW what sort of shark structure were you thinking of? Basking, Tiger, Hammerhead?

Why the hell do trilobite have a more complex eye than us?

Err they don't. Whatever made you think they did? What kind of trilobite did you have in mind anyway? Some have compound eyes (good for detecting motion) with steroscopic vision while other types of trilobite (Agnostina) have no eyes at all!
You really do need to be a little more specific sometimes!

You talk about mutation. Did you see the reaction of RICHARD DAWKINS when he was asked about MUTATION? HE DIDN'T SAY CRAP. HE IS ONE OF THE MOST KNOWN EVOLUTIONIST AND WELL RESPECTED. WHY THE HELL DIDN'T HE HAVE AN ANSWER

Err because like many of us here he realised that arguing this issue with people who don't understand it is a major waste of effort.

Did you see the part about the FOSSIL RECORD? Major problem for the theory.

Err The fossil record supports evolution.
See for yourself.

http://www.agiweb.org/news/evolution/index.html

All this nonsense is moot anyway. How long do you think it takes for evolution to show its hand? For Drosophila it takes about twenty generations, thats about a year for you and me.
Yup you guessed it you can lock them in a box and watch them evolve!
If your really interested you could always google drosophila evolution
But here's an example from my own backyard so to speak.
Meet the Peppered Moth Biston betularia

http://www.utm.edu/~rirwin/moth.htm

This plucky little fellow likes to rest on the trunks of trees where his camoflage renders him all but invisible. Over the years the trees round here have got a little dingy what with all the pollution in the atmosphere so now all the specimens of moth in the cities are darker than those out in the wild!
Thats evolution in action!

Evolution! Do you have a better answer?
Dee Cee

 

[philocrazy]

You people dont know what you think you know
anyway
let me say something philosophical here
what is evolution,where does it start,where does it end
when you have an answear to that,ill enlighten you on God too
in the mean time
cause mean time is all you see

Philosopher Philocrazy

 

[MacM]

You people dont know what you think you know
anyway
let me say something philosophical here
what is evolution,where does it start,where does it end
when you have an answear to that,ill enlighten you on God too
in the mean time
cause mean time is all you see

Philosopher Philocrazy

WOW, enlightening indeed. Horseshit.

 

[786]

Aquiring genes is a way different thing than becoming a completely distinct animal.

 

[786]

I'll write later.

 

[Nicholas I. Hosein]

Shut up.

 

[MacM]

Excellent post Dee Cee.

 

[MacM]

In this infinite universe, with its matter and energy having limits and hence obeying the second law of theromdynamics, how does this say anything about creationism?

I am inclined (I think) to agree with your tone. However, your post confuses me.

How do you translate and "Infinite" universe to matter and energy having limits and hence obeying the 2nd law?

If the universe were infinite it seems there could be no 2nd law. Infinity times any number is still infinity and the universe would never run down.

 

[philocrazy]

macm:
WOW, enlightening indeed. Horseshit.
------------------------------------------------------
care to reply to horseshit again
with macm shit please?

Philosopher philocrazy

 

[Lemming3k]

I'm surprised.
Natural Selection-removes the weak. I agree. But there is no evolutionary mechanism involved.
Mutation-no known action of mutation of 1 animal into a completely distinct animal. I was surprised that you didn't see the reaction of the Evolutionist who was asked this question. Mutation only disrupts the structure of the DNA doesn't change the animal or add any genetical material.

DNA is what makes us who we are and we pass that onto our children, if a mutation occurs there will be a difference between our genetic structure, if several occur then many differences can happen over millions of years and a new creature can be formed(new in the sense that its different from the original not one of its direct parents).

If there is proof that Natural Selection makes things evolve. Please provide it to me. For I am very much interested.
If there is any proof that Mutation results in a completely distinct animal, then please provide me the evidence, for I am very much interested.
Because Mutation only makes "freaks of nature", like that cow in the video.

Your blissfull ignorance makes it apparent you havent even bothered to search on a website for an evolution of humans from apes, there are very definate and distinct trees if you can be bothered to look, and like i said take a trip to a museum, most have distinct parts showing evolution in great detail.

And one more thing. Evolution proposes that things evolved from "simple" to "complex" forms.
Humans are the last product of Evolution so far. Right?

Not the last no, the most advanced? In some ways but not all, and we are still evolving.

Then why do bee's have complex "eyes" then us?
Cambrians had the same eye structures as bee found today.
How the hell did the eye survive, and not the actual specie.
Their eyes are more "complex" than ours. Even though we evolved after them. Right? BULLSHIT.
Even the concept of evolution from "simple to complex" is BULLSHIT.

You know nothing about the subject, bees evolved along a different line to us, evolution doesnt dictate that we all evolve into the same thing or that what works best for one creature works best for all, nor does it dictate that whatever the most advanced features are that we must have them, otherwise we would have wings and an anteaters tongue.

And about those skulls that you mentioned they have all been dismissed as scientific evidence to support the Theory of Evolution.

That statements just comedy, they are dismissed because they are scientific evidence?
Did you know carrots used to be purple or white? Until by selective breading by farmers they turned orange, thats a pretty distinct change dont you think?

The shark's structure about some hundred million years old is the same as it is today

If it aint broke dont fix it, and actually its likely to have made small changes, its the most effiecient predator in the sea, it doesnt need to change a lot until its prey does.

If someone cuts your arms. Are your children going to be armless

Complete lack of understanding about mutation, that isnt a mutation, it doesnt change any genetic structure.

 

[James R]

786:

Can you perhaps summarise the key points of the video for us, so we don't have to watch (and download) an hour of video?

Which things "shatter" Darwin's theory?

Natural Selection-removes the weak. I agree. But there is no evolutionary mechanism involved.

Natural selection is an evolutionary mechanism.

Mutation-no known action of mutation of 1 animal into a completely distinct animal. I was surprised that you didn't see the reaction of the Evolutionist who was asked this question. Mutation only disrupts the structure of the DNA doesn't change the animal or add any genetical material.

Since the DNA determines what the animal is like, any "disruption" of the DNA must change the animal (barring neutral mutations, of course).

Both of the basic fundementals of Evolution have no proof.

Neither do Newton's laws of motion. All we have is mountains of evidence supporting these theories.

If there is proof that Natural Selection makes things evolve. Please provide it to me. For I am very much interested.

I don't think you are.

All of those skulls that were produced as evidence were dismissed. Give me proof that Humans evolved from Apes. Don't give me DNA and other similarity bullshit. I want actual proof of the process EVOLUTION.

What would convince you? What would you regard as proof?

Humans are the last product of Evolution so far. Right?

Wrong. There is no "last" product of evolution. Evolution is a continuing process in all species.

Their eyes are more "complex" than ours. Even though we evolved after them. Right? BULLSHIT.

Evolving later doesn't mean you're more complex than earlier species. I don't know where you got that idea. From the video, perhaps?

Mutation DOESN'T add any NEW GENETICAL MATERIAL for something or someone to aquire NEW organs or change the shape or anything else.

That's wrong too. One common mutation is duplication of various sequences of DNA, which results in a longer genetic sequence.

You talk about mutation. Did you see the reaction of RICHARD DAWKINS when he was asked about MUTATION? HE DIDN'T SAY CRAP. HE IS ONE OF THE MOST KNOWN EVOLUTIONIST AND WELL RESPECTED. WHY THE HELL DIDN'T HE HAVE AN ANSWER?

He did give an answer. He has written several articles on the misrepresentation and false editing by these film makers. They made it look like he was stumped by inserting footage of him taken during a break in the interview process.

 

[786]

DNA is what makes us who we are and we pass that onto our children, if a mutation occurs there will be a difference between our genetic structure, if several occur then many differences can happen over millions of years and a new creature can be formed(new in the sense that its different from the original not one of its direct parents).

My friend, you really DON'T know the INHERITENCE process. Go take a science class. I've just went through this stuff. If you don't have time I'll explain it to you.

Your blissfull ignorance makes it apparent you havent even bothered to search on a website for an evolution of humans from apes, there are very definate and distinct trees if you can be bothered to look, and like i said take a trip to a museum, most have distinct parts showing evolution in great detail.

I wonder why? Because mostly it's PROPAGANDA.

Not the last no, the most advanced? In some ways but not all, and we are still evolving.

OK, we are not the last. We are still evolving? Huh?. Why don't the scientist provide this as evidence. Wouldn't it make there case STRONGER. You are just making this BULLSHIT UP. Give me a SCIENCE ARTICLE or a SCIENCE SOURCE that says we are EVOLVING!!!.

You know nothing about the subject, bees evolved along a different line to us, evolution doesnt dictate that we all evolve into the same thing or that what works best for one creature works best for all, nor does it dictate that whatever the most advanced features are that we must have them, otherwise we would have wings and an anteaters tongue.

You are taking about along the line. LOL. Lookie here boy.

THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION TEARS UP THE EVOLUTIONARY "TREE OF LIFE" The above illustration is taken from The Book of Life, published in 2001 under the editorship of the late Stephen Jay Gould, one of the world's most prominent evolutionists. The illustration explains which different groups of animals emerged in which periods. On the left, the various geological periods are listed, starting 2,500 million years ago. The coloured columns show the major phyla of animals. (The colours in the columns refer to different periods.) When we examine this figure, the miracle of the Cambrian Explosion is obvious. There is only one phylum before the Cambrian Age (the Cnidaria, which include jellyfish and corals). In the Cambrian Age, however, 13 completely different phyla suddenly emerged. This picture is the opposite of the theory of evolution, because evolution maintains that living phyla increased in stages, like the branches of a tree. The evolutionists who drew up the figure try to gloss over this gap by talking about "theoretical links." We can see pale lines at the bottom of the figure joining the coloured boxes (in other words, genuine phyla of which fossil remains have been found). These are imaginary links required by the theory of evolution, but of which no evidence has ever been found. If the theory of evolution were true, if these links were real and not imaginary, then fossils of transitional groups should have been discovered. Despite all the fossil research of the last 150 years, the fact that these links are still just a dream shows that the theory of evolution is nothing but a fantasy.

That statements just comedy, they are dismissed because they are scientific evidence?
Did you know carrots used to be purple or white? Until by selective breading by farmers they turned orange, thats a pretty distinct change dont you think?

I meant they are NOT considered evidence anymore. They DISMISSED. The part about carrots. This is HEREDITY, it is NOT MUTATION.

If it aint broke dont fix it, and actually its likely to have made small changes, its the most effiecient predator in the sea, it doesnt need to change a lot until its prey does.

Excuse me. But go read the theory again. It is not the CHOICE of the animal, to change. IT JUST HAPPENS, BY CHANCE. Variations occur by CHANCE.

Complete lack of understanding about mutation, that isnt a mutation, it doesnt change any genetic structure.

Could you give me an example of MUTATION?

I've said this many times. I guess I'll have to say it again.

Natural Selection- doesn't have an evolutionary mechanism. You don't believe me then here is the source.

"Natural Selection can do NOTHING until FAVORABLE variations CHANCE to occur."
Charles Darwin The Origin of Species. 1.ed. p.177

This is from the book "The Origin of Species" by CHARLES DARWIN.
Keywords are actually the whole pharse. But I like your attention on the word "CHANCE".

I repeat Natural Selection only eliminates the weak, it has no EVOLUTIONARY mechanism to EVOLVE an animal.

The science of Genetics that developed at the beginning of the 20th century proved that it was not acquired physical traits but only genes, that were transmitted to subsiquent generations. This discovery made it clear that a scenerio suggesting that acquired traits accumilated from generation to generation and generated different living species was implausible. In other words there were no inheritable variations for Darwin's proposed mechanism of Natural Selection to choose from.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive, slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down."
Charles Darwin The Origin of Species. 1 ed. p.189

Well lets show this to you. 20th century science has also demonstrated that there are systems and organs with extemely complicated and intricate mechanisms at work in living beings. These systems and organs will not function even if a single component of them is lacking. This characteristic called the Irreducible Complexity of Life is evidence that these structures must have emerged at once and fully formed. This fact definetly demolishes the Evolutionist claim that living beings evolved gradually by Natural Selection through minor changes over-time.

His theory just "absolutely break down".

Now MUTATION. Mutation only damages the DNA. And ONLY give harm to the living being. Effects of Mutation are NOT beneficial but destructive, or fatal. Mutation only damages and disrupts the DNA code. Since Mutation doesn't increase the genetic information. Mutation does NOT increase the in the geneome. Just screws it up. Then there is no possibilty for a creature to acquire new organs, that are in perfect conditions, like we find in the nature.

For example. If a nuclear radiation happens. Then the people in caught in the radiation could be extremely harmed, or die.

 

[b0urgeoisie]

To the contrary. One should never abandon common sense and simply guess. That is to become religious and function on blind faith, not only in absence of evidence but in opposition to evidence AND logic. Not that we can resolve all issue via logic. But such issues are not resolved by mere blind faith absent common sense.

Do you even remember what you type ten seconds after you type it? YOU DID abandon logic. YOU ARE just guessing. Then you contradict yourself. You say never abandon logic. Then follow that with - not all problems can be solved with logic.

This doesn't make sense.

Sorry, it won't make any difference to type slower.

What is not accounted for.

The anti-universe. You explain the creation of planets with you lame formula and cannot account for the inverse of planetary bodies. Which, for your formula to work, must exist.

The "Net Energy in the observable universe = 0". It is +/- energy flow. It is all accounted for.

That says nothing for the creation of energy. It says nothing about the creation of stars. It says nothing about the genesis of the universe. Those are absurd notions that you have dreamed up.

I don't have or visualize and anti-verse. That is your misconstrued understanding of the meaning of +/- energy.

No that is the formula that you are using. You cannot say that all things multiplied by their inverse produce 0 and not account for the inverse. So you must imagine or visualize an anti-universe to explain our universe for your formula to work.

LOL. Your guess would be grossly in error on several fronts. The fact is I fabricated the formula...

Oh! That is the problem. You weren't paying attention last week in pre-algebra. You only saw the formula on some other person's notes. That would explain why you know the formula but have no idea what it means.

...to explain "Creation Ex Nihilo" , which just happens to provide a logical solution to our origin...

You must accept that it does not. Unless you can account for all parts of your formula you cannot claim it valid. You must account for the (-).

 

[MacM]

Do you even remember what you type ten seconds after you type it? YOU DID abandon logic. YOU ARE just guessing. Then you contradict yourself. You say never abandon logic. Then follow that with - not all problems can be solved with logic.

I am afraid it is your lack of logic that makes you think I have forgone logic. My position is based on logic as supported by actual evidence. That is not guess work, although neither is it proof. It is simply a more likely answer.

Sorry, it won't make any difference to type slower.

I agree I don't think typing slower solves your problem.

The anti-universe. You explain the creation of planets with you lame formula and cannot account for the inverse of planetary bodies. Which, for your formula to work, must exist.

Untrue. You have just proven your deragatory comments are based on a complete failure to comprehend a simple principle and proves you did not read Dr Tyron's work either.

That says nothing for the creation of energy. It says nothing about the creation of stars. It says nothing about the genesis of the universe. Those are absurd notions that you have dreamed up.

You have my sympathy. It is clear you bear some sort of handicap.

No that is the formula that you are using. You cannot say that all things multiplied by their inverse produce 0 and not account for the inverse. So you must imagine or visualize an anti-universe to explain our universe for your formula to work.

Again absolutely false. I have not proposed an anti-verse and while it might exist my personal belief is that it doesn't. If you actually take time to read Dr Tyron's work your failings in understanding this simple principle should become clear.

Oh! That is the problem. You weren't paying attention last week in pre-algebra. You only saw the formula on some other person's notes. That would explain why you know the formula but have no idea what it means.

Pardon me but up yours. If you knew anything about me or my work - and age - you would be clearly embarrassed. I'll let this go this time with my comments in red but I suggest you get a grip on your lip.

You must accept that it does not. Unless you can account for all parts of your formula you cannot claim it valid. You must account for the (-).

Like I said read Dr Tyron's work it makes it abundantly clear what the formula means. BTW the formula was an independant development; which now just happens to be reflected in Dr Tyron's work. It was not in response to his or anyother person's prior work. So stuff it.

While we are at it perhaps you might enlighten us with your own developments or do you just like to hang on coat tails quoting what others have told you and what you read in your Jr High science books?

 

[DeeCee]

786 and the evolution of despair.

Last post for me I think.
My life just isn't long enough to justify continuing this pointless discussion.
If you don't believe in evolution thats fine by me. Perhaps ignorance of evolution is a requirement of whatever intellectual paradigm your locked into.
If thats the case and you really are confined to your own fantasy land do us all a favour and don't run for office.
At the end of the day evolution is simply a theory but it's the only credible theory I know of that matches observation.
Unless you can come up with a better theory I think I'll stick with evolution.

Now for the specifics.

Give me a SCIENCE ARTICLE or a SCIENCE SOURCE that says we are EVOLVING!!!.

I thought you didn't read articles that support evolution but I'll post the link anyway I might even include a little quote and summary for you.

Sickle cell is a nasty inherited disorder found only in those of a black persuasion. Populations with sickle cell trait originated in areas of Africa where malarial infections are common. It's known that individuals with genetic sickle cell markers (thats not to say they suffer the disease they just carry the gene) demonstrate a high resistance to malarial infection. So it's a trade off. You have resistance to malaria at the cost of possibly developing sickle cell. So far so good. Now what happens if you remove individuals from that population load them on a ship, sail them across the ocean and sell them into slavery in a place where malaria is much less common?
Well after a couple of hundred years you find that far fewer individuals demonstate sickle cell trait while in the original population the ratio remains the same.
Go figure.

B S Haldane proposed that such genetic diseases could have evolved through natural selection if people who inherit the genetic factor from only one parent (heterozygotes) are protected against malaria but the harmful effects are confined to the much smaller number of people who inherit the genetic factor from both parents (homozygotes).

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/genome/genesandbody/hg06f003.html

In the Cambrian Age, however, 13 completely different phyla suddenly emerged.

What's "suddenly"?
An hour? A week? A million years?
BTW have you any idea how hard it is to find billion year old fossils?
There are gaps in the record no doubt about that but the theory continues to support observation.

This is HEREDITY, it is NOT MUTATION...
It is not the CHOICE of the animal, to change. IT JUST HAPPENS, BY CHANCE. Variations occur by CHANCE...

These are two very stupid and irrelevant statements but I bet you don't believe me!

Natural Selection- doesn't have an evolutionary mechanism

I believe James has already pointed out that Natural Selection is an evolutionary mechanism.
Then you quote Darwin!

LOL
I've had enough.
I'm off for some grub now.

There's none so stupid as those who will not learn.
Dee Cee

 

[786]

786:

Can you perhaps summarise the key points of the video for us, so we don't have to watch (and download) an hour of video?

First of all, you don't have to download the movie. You only need Real Player to watch. Well, I don't know if I can do a good job at summarizing but here goes. The movies talks about how Natural Selection is not a evolutionary mechanism. It also talks about the effects of Mutation, and how it can't possibly evolve animals. It also talk's about the Fossil Record, and how it doesn't support the theory. It also talk's about the SKULLs that were considered to show, us evolving from ape. It show's that all of those skulls are dimissed. So they are not considered evidence anymore. This shows the propaganda that is going on in the media, which still considers it as evidence, when it was officially considered not evidence. This is just the points which it talks about. I still recommend you watch the video.

Which things "shatter" Darwin's theory?

Good question. Well in the book "The Origin of Species" by CHARLES DARWIN wrote a chapter on difficulties on theory. In that chapter he states what things, if prove, would shatter his theory. I'll explain this, keep on reading. Although I explained this in my previous post.

Natural selection is an evolutionary mechanism.

Hmm. I think I explained this. Anyways, Natural Selection is NOT an evolutionary mechanism. If you go and read the theory you will read that Natural Selection tells us that the weak will die, and the strong will live. and also that the animal fittest to the enviroment will live and the one's who are not fit will die. This does not mean that there is any process of Evolution. This theory only tells us which animals will survive, NOT which animals will evolve. This can be supported by a verse by DARWIN himself.

"Natural Selection can do NOTHING until FAVORABLE variations CHANCE to occur."
Charles Darwin The Origin of Species. 1.ed. p.177

You see that "Natural Selection can do NOTHING"
I also want your attention to draw to this verse, extremely. You see that Natural Selection can do nothing until "FAVORABLE variations", now my question to you is how do you get favorable variations? If I wanted to be superman, will I become one. NO!. Thus we can conclude that these changes do not happen because ONE wants it to happen. So here we are talking about "natural" Favorable variations. Look around in the nature that there are millions of species in the world. Did all of them get "favorable variation". Didn't even once a mistake occur, or wasn't favorable. Use some common sense here. I also want you to see that these animals play there part in the OVERALL balance to the best of their ability. Let me show you the balance which I am talking about.

Fish eat plankton (or something like that), and some birds eat Fish.
Now see that the Fish prevent planktons from overflowing and in the same way Birds prevent Fish from over-populating. These creatures are perfect in mantaining this balance.

Here is the verse again.
"Natural Selection can do NOTHING until FAVORABLE variations CHANCE to occur."
Charles Darwin The Origin of Species. 1.ed. p.177

Ok, IF(HUGE IF) all of the variations were favorable, but that is not all, read the verse again. These "favorable" variations were to occur by "CHANCE". The word "CHANCE" screws the theory even more. Basically if Evolution depended on Natural Selection, and Natural Selection depended on "Favorable" variations which "CHANCE" to occur. Then you can see that the whole theory is depended on "CHANCE." The "CHANCE" of "FAVORABLE" variations.

I just want you to notice this. That "Favorable variations CHANCE to occur" is the BUILDING BLOCK of the Theory of EVOLUTION. So basically we are a product of CHANCES!!!!!!!. Life is sooooooooooo complicated. You believe that it was a BIG CHANCE. Tell me is that BULLSHIT OR NOT?

The theory of Evolution is no better than saying "Some million years ago a tornado blew through a junkyard and by CHANCE it created a MERCEDES. Then every year the tornado came and by CHANCE added new material to the MERCEDES which then evolved into a model 2000. Then the tornado came again and by CHANCE added new material to the MERCEDES and evolved it into a model 2001, and this process kept going on, and on, and on."

First of all, a "single" cell is more complex then a Mercedes. If a Mercedes was created by a creator (some person, I don't know), then why do you have a problem believing that life, which is more complex than a mercedes, had a Creator. A creator who has the power, the knowledge, and the wisdom to create something so complex and beautiful.

Since the DNA determines what the animal is like, any "disruption" of the DNA must change the animal (barring neutral mutations, of course).

You are right, that it must change the animal in some way. But it doesn't mean creating something "distinct" and in perfect working condition.
You are see the changes in DNA resulting in "freak of nature". For example, you probably of heard, of some child born with less than five fingers or other things. You can probably find the pictures of these things if you searched online. If you watched the video, you probably would've seen the cow.

Another example of a mutation. If one was caught in the Nuclear blast's radiation. What do you think happens. The DNA is extremely damaged. The person dies in a day, or very very close. Or someone is born with unnormal features.

But in no way does it ADD any information to the genome. First of all the DNA is too complicated. You cannot add things to DNA by CHANCE. Yes, we have done things to DNA. But it REQUIRES PRECISION, and it requries a lot of concentration. It is in no way done BY CHANCE.

Neither do Newton's laws of motion. All we have is mountains of evidence supporting these theories.

True, but it can be observed by us.

I don't think you are.

Maybe my tone is like that, but I really am interested.

What would convince you? What would you regard as proof?

First of all, I can never believe that we are a product of "FAVORABLE varations" which "CHANCED" to occur. But if I were to believe in Evolution, then I would need to actually see the process of Evolution.

Wrong. There is no "last" product of evolution. Evolution is a continuing process in all species.

Alright!

Evolving later doesn't mean you're more complex than earlier species. I don't know where you got that idea. From the video, perhaps?

I'm suprised. But evolutionists believe that things evolved from "simple to complex" beings.

That's wrong too. One common mutation is duplication of various sequences of DNA, which results in a longer genetic sequence.

Could you explain this?

He did give an answer. He has written several articles on the misrepresentation and false editing by these film makers. They made it look like he was stumped by inserting footage of him taken during a break in the interview process.

Ok, I'll take your word for it. It doen't do much, anyways.