a challenge to prove all aspects of evolution (a pagan religious concept) through the scientific method
Offline - The vanguard theory of evolution has taken on an almost sacred status. The theory of ‘evolution’ that the evolutionists are really promoting, and which creationists oppose, is the idea that particles turned into people over time, without any need for an intelligent Designer.
- A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the general theory of evolution’ is thereby proven or even essential, and creation disproved. The key issue is the type of change required—to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content.
The three billion DNA ‘letters’ stored in each human cell nucleus convey a great deal more information (known as ‘specified complexity ) than the over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism.
- The DNA sequences in a ‘higher’ organism, such as a human being or a horse, for instance, code for structures and functions unknown in the sort of ‘primitive first cell’ from which all other organisms are said to have evolved.
- None of the alleged proofs of ‘evolution in action’ provide a single example of functional new information being added to genes. Rather, they all involve sorting and loss of information. To claim that mere change proves that information-increasing change can occur is like saying that because a merchant can sell goods, he can sell them for a profit.
- The origin of information is a major problem for the GENERAL THEORY OF EVOLUTION
- ‘ignoring important distinctions’! It’s evolutionary propagandists who generally mix them up. Biologists frequently define evolution as ‘change in gene frequency with time’ or ‘descent with modification,’ or other such ‘microevolution’ words, and then cite insignificant examples of change within species, such as Darwin’s finches, as clinching proof of ‘evolution’ in the ‘macro’ sense and disproof of creationism!
- The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.
The steps of the scientific method are to:
- Ask a Question
- Do Background Research
- Construct a Hypothesis
- Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
- Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
- Communicate Your Results
- It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. A "fair test" occurs when you change only one factor (variable) and keep all other conditions the same.
1. Observation
We exist.
2. Proposal of a question or a problem
How did we get here?
3. A hypothesis or educated guess made
We evolved from nothing, to dirt, to single cells, to multiple cells, to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, to mammals, to humans.
4. Scientific experimentation
Oh, wait a minute. Thats right, evolution can not be observed, tested, or measured. No one has ever done an experiment that made life come from non-life or a lower creature turn into a higher creature and without that empirical evidence evolution can not leave the hypothesis or model phase.
I do not need to prove the creation model true, I can simply prove the evolution model false. There are only two possibilities of how we got here, either we got here by supernatural intervention or we got here on our own, and if one of them can be proven absurd then the other has to be true. Someone that believes in atheistic evolution will never be able to disprove YAHUWAH or the creation because in order to disprove YAHUWAH you would need to be all knowing and omnipresent, in other words you have to have the attributes of YAHUWAH to disprove YAHUWAH. It would be as if you had an infinite amount of white ping pong balls and one red one. If you could never find the red one that does not disprove its existence; however, if someone found the red ball and showed it to you that would prove its existence.
Evolution is not a proven fact Evolution is not a scientific natural law Evolution is not even a scientific theory
evolution is not based in science. you think you are wise to say you know better but you are just being a smart ass belittling what I posted which is merely facts based on real science and repeating them is fair.
you and all your slapnut atheist monkey wannabes keep professing your claim to knowledge through science? I know it is a waste of my time to repeat myself to a bunch of mind bubbles in so many ways!!!
show me the origin of life and matter in space over time through the scientific method WITHOUT exposing youself in fact that you ARE of the spirit of satan as a liar and accuser:
atheist terminology falling under the stupid invented term EVOLUTION:which is being preached in maistream media
Cosmic, chemical, stellar and planetary, organic, macro and micro -------evolution. dont play stupid they are all connected under the scam of evolution even if you ignore most of them because you cannot grasp the big picture. that does NOT mean they are ALL not a part of your unoriginal pagan religion of origins.
Cosmic evolution involves the origin of the universe, time and matter itself. The Big Bang theory falls within this discipline of evolution. NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Chemical evolution involves the origin of complex elements. This discipline also attempts to explain the process in which those elements formed.
NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Stellar and planetary evolution is the discipline used to explain the origin of the stars and planets. This is distinct from cosmic evolution, yet, at times, overlaps it. NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Organic evolution attempts to explain the origin of living matter. Those in origin of life studies most often focus on this discipline of evolution.
NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
The two final disciplines of evolution are also the most often confused by people. They are macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Micro-evolution states that all living organisms experience mutations and have the ability to develop genetic adaptations. The difference between this and macro-evolution is that micro-evolution only deals with mutations within a species.
Macro-evolution, on the other hand, states that such adaptations and mutations allow new species to form.
NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Also micro changes can be observed with the scientific method. While all the other terms OF EVOLUTION are imaginary and preached as religious fact without question or basis in science or common sense. ( PAGAN HUMANIST /ATHEIST/ CHUMPS WITH CHIMP ENVY/ ARE OF THE SPIRIT OF SATAN)
fact
Evolution is an ancient pagan concept (MAN MADE RELIGION)where people worship nature / creation instead of a CREATOR or they invent idols based on nature/creation
the theory of evolution has been with us for a very, very long time. It actually comes from ancient pagan religious beliefs that continue to be reflected in many religious traditions around the globe today. It has been documented that many ancient pagan teachers and philosophers believed that the universe spontaneously evolved by itself, that the universe is millions of years old, that humans once resembled fish, and that all living things continue to evolve.
ABIOGENESIS:nonliving origin belief (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)
1. (noun) abiogenesis, autogenesis, autogeny, spontaneous generation
a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.
Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material (non-life). (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)
This concept has expanded a great deal as mankind’s understanding of science has grown, but
all forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable.
There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action.
It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment. (NOW DEMONSTRATE IT THROUGH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD)
Conditions believed to have existed on earth are either incapable of producing the building blocks needed, or self-contradictory.
No evidence has been found suggesting where or when such life might have generated. In fact, everything we know of science today seems to indicate that abiogenesis could not have happened under any naturally possible conditions.
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
- Login to post comments
You have a serious language failure here. Procreation is the act of reproduction. Heterosexual intercourse is rarely procreation. It is usually just fucking. So, no, my little chickadee, it is not what you said.
What's selfish about "queer pride?" How in any way does a homosexual relationship affect you? How does it harm anyone? There's nothing selfish about wanting to love, and to be loved. People like you are the ones being selfish, by denying the rights for two people, simply because it makes you feel icky. Or maybe it makes you feel all warm and tingly. In any case, there is nothing selfish about homosexual relationships, any more than a heterosexual relationship.
Nothing's wrong with a man and woman combo. Nobody's stopping heterosexual relationships. That's the point. Nobody's gonna make you go out and marry someone of your sex, if homosexuals are able to claim their right to marriage.
As for me: I am not gay. However, my boyfriend is.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Lol.
I never got that either, I still have not had a theist (or 'conservative') give me a good argument for why anyone should care if gay people want to be gay. The arguments are just appeals to the emotional sensibilities of conservative religious culture.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
...that Mindtricks-never-Matter is afraid of THE BIG BAD WOLF:
I think the op is proof himself of regressive evolution.
Atheist wolves...
... keeping RRS rational! (In our own unique way...)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
if you really considered your self an animal and not human then you would have to go to the animal hspital to be put down.
we do not treat animals as humans just because they are considered companions. and humans are like animals but they are not as animals.
you rely on bullshit terminology to degrade yourself and humanity. when did you last go to a vet for a check up? I will accept never but you will probably say every time you need medical help.
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
Submitted by B166ER on April 14, 2010 - 4:08am.
First off, about the humans heart. You state that without it we die but you never state that it rests when we die. You never mentioned it. You are wrong.----------------> if you are too stupid know the context of what I said then you are the bigot. you already know the rests when you die so it should be obvious that the point was about the living heart. so you are a dipshit who wastes time how interesting that you believe in millions of years because by you logic you need an infinite amount of time to grasp common sense without being a chump.
and now the following refers to you
Now, on to the other problems with your fascist ramblings. Dude, you just showed your full blown bigotry right there.
big-o-try
–noun,plural-ries.
1.stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. 2.the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot. So yeah, calling you a bigot is fully justified.
Just to let you know, I'm not "queer", but I don't take it as an insult and if I was "queer" I see no reason why I would be ashamed of it. You can call me a man who is attracted to men all day long, it doesn't matter, my feelings are not hurt as I'm not a fascist who is offended by diversity. You are the fascist who thinks differences in people is wrong. -------------------------------->NO I am not a fascist because you are a chump with chimp envy. nor do I oppress queers by stating the truth exposing what they are and what they represent by their selfish arrogance imposing their distorted reality on me and the people I care about. they parade down city streets so that they can change the laws to implement teaching kids how to be queers right along with the other class that teaches kids to think like animals and reject their humanity and thus their morals and responsibilities. they will forfeit their free will according to the laws given from YAHUWAH not men. you will say fuck the laws because you are above the laws. infact you are a fool with your own dick up your own ass.
YOU love queers because they are queers not because they are humans. otherwise you would also love theists not because they are theists but because you love queers. which I can see you love neither you only love yourself. I do not hate the humans who are queers but I truly hate that which is the act of being queer and is not human. it is the sin not the sinner. atheists profess to love nature for all its glory and they put nature as the most high, I truly hate that not the atheist drone minion who is a expendable pawn by choice. I pitty you and all pagan liars because you are still alive to choose where you will spend eternity.
you still fail to meet my challenge
I accept your failure as a sign of defeat
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
Submitted by nigelTheBold on April 14, 2010 - 12:31pm.
You have a serious language failure here. Procreation is the act of reproduction. Heterosexual intercourse is rarely procreation. It is usually just fucking. So, no, my little chickadee, it is not what you said.
---------------> usually does not define always and does not mean you should expect that it means never by your selfish delusion.
the reproductive organs are designed for reproduction with pleasure. the term procreation refers to making love between a man and a woman as in they are intended to lay with one another becoming one flesh . when some say he fucked her and thats why she is pregnant it is because he fucked her not he fucked him or she fucked him or she fucked her. and not because you distort reality by changing the meaning of words like queer to gay or making love /procreation to fucking which is a term that means the act is not sacred but rather a cheap selfish feeling of pride and not love. so what if you say a man can love another man , that is brotherly love but when people say he really fucked you in that deal or fucked you up as an expression it means they did not show brotherly love nor does it mean the performed the act of fucking by your definition. it is a negative term just like the word nigger is considered offensive to african dark skinned people it is a word taken out of context to change the meaning but the original meaning meaning is still there . so if an atheist says fuck you he is not saying love you and if a black hip hop thug wannabe says nigger in a spoken word lyric song he is also saying something degrading. which in that case pathetic because they still dont like being called nigger.
the point is you can distort your own reality but you may not realize you are imposing you distorted reality on others.
What's selfish about "queer pride?" --------> it is a selfish lie based in a perversion by choice and taking pride in lies is wrong and in most cases is not tolerated by normal rational people. How in any way does a homosexual relationship affect you? -----------> it affects me when they start parading down streets in protest over what they call human rights while on the same streets there are homless people treated as outcasts. all the queers want is material pride and status by changing the laws that protect the heterosexual. who does not go around protesting straight pride.
How does it harm anyone?-------> it harms everyone the same way the lie of evolution harms everyone . preaching lies as truth distorts reality which defies laws of YAHUWAH you not only harm me with your lies but you harm the next geneation.
There's nothing selfish about wanting to love, and to be loved. --------> brotherly love for all in peace that does not include your perverted delusional idea of fucking which is a choice not something you were forced to do. it is free will to fuck your neighbor or to love your neighbor they are not the same thing.
and having the knowledge of good and evil means you will be judged according to how you chose to measure good and evil and that IS YOUR TRIAL in mortality
Nothing's wrong with a man and woman combo.-------> because it is normal.
Nobody's stopping heterosexual relationships. ----------> because it is normal
That's the point. ----------->because it is normal
Nobody's gonna make you go out and marry someone of your sex,-----------> unless they brainwash you to believe it is normal and that is is good for you as a male to believe when you are a child that men should consider men as mates in life. thats is wrong and it currpts people reality.
if homosexuals are able to claim their right to marriage. then you redefine humanity and next you will start enforcing cloning as the only solution to your queer society since you reject the concept of procreation until then you will probably just steal females aggs they queer women use dildos because they know that the miss the real deal or if they use donated sperm and take pills to make them appear masulin and then they lie to normal people saying they are men.
this whole farce is the result of humanist pagan babylonian concepts of ancient times still practiced today with a new spin on words and clever terminology
As for me: I am not gay. However, my boyfriend is.-------------> so by gay you actually state you are not full of joy and by boyfriend you assume your queer partner is full of joy.
you confuse terms to suite your selfish pride and you may say you are happy when you know deep in your spirit you are queer not gay( full of joy) and you admit you are not welcome when you realize that the feeling of being treated as an outcast is the same as that of the homless people on the sidewalk you ignore while you protest human rights.
I believe you and others like you are still more than capable of brotherly love more so than people such as those as the satanic priest in the satanic catholic church(worshipping LORD_YAHWEH _JESUS _PAGAN ELOHIM) which supports evolution as is expected since it was satan who introduced the idea of man becoming as YAHUWAH the most high.
we are made in the image of the YAHUWAH . WE ARE like HIM not as HIM . humans are like all things in creation but not as all things in creation and thus animals are like humans but they will never humans nor humans as animals and that is why humans rights will always be above the rights of animals and creation itself which is not a person like atheist tend to refer to as mother nature.
you failed to meet my challenge to demonstrate your pagan religion of evolution through the scieintific method yet again
I accept you failure as a sign of defeat
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
yay gay people!!!!!!!
Spread Love Not Hate
Goddamit how do you post photos? do they have a source code or something???
Guys, time to face the fact...
Submitted by Kapkao on April 14, 2010 - 3:13pm....that Mindtricks-never-Matter is afraid of THE BIG BAD WOLF:
I actually had a pet real pet wolf as a child. it was no different than the dog I later had as a pet aswell both ate from my hand and bowed at my feet in obediance. and I gave them respect and love and they respected me and were loyal. so your big bad wolf turned out to be my pet and loyal servant.
you failed to meet my posted challenge yet again
I accept your failure as a sign of defeat you are useless to your cause
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
Man, you must like to listen
Submitted by v4ultingbassist on April 12, 2010 - 12:15am.Man, you must like to listen to yourself talk.
Cell phones are better than vocal chords. A waterpark pump is significantly stronger than a human heart.
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
man cannot design vocal chords and before you had the cell phone you still had vocal chords which you still use with a cellphone despite the purpose of the cell phone for communication regardless of texting which you need fingers to use.
when your cell phone breaks you replace it or upgrade while you still have your vocal chords for the next cell phone . you lose
a water park pump breaks down and does not last as long as the human heart the sustains life while being the size of a human fist. you lose again the heart and the vocal chords are superior to your examples of man made technology
again you fail to meet my challenge I posted
I accept your failure as a sign of defeat yet again
now run along back to your cave as an outcast
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
i accept your life as an example of SODOMY!
YOU FUCKING QUEER HOMO PIECE OF SHIT! the LORD your GOD has COMMANDED you to stop your filthy UNGODLY WAYS!!!!
EVERYONE LISTEN!!!!!!
i know MIND OVER MATTER from theologyweb forums! he is a FRAUD. he is a WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING, a TARE AMONG THE WHEAT!!!
i have several FIRST-HAND ACCOUNTS that MIND OVER MATTER is a FLAMING FAGGOT OF THE FIRST ORDER!!! he DISGUSTS me and all GODLY people, pretending to share the righteous wrath of GOD against the WICKED.
he is most definitely NOT A CHRISTIAN! "not everyone who says to me 'lord, lord' shall be saved but only he who DOES THE WILL OF MY FATHER who is in heaven"!
his life is a disgusting pit of DEPRAVITY! he watches GAY PORNOGRAPHY! and LIKES IT!
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
They have to be available on a web-site. If they are your own photos, you have to have uploaded them to some site which allows you to link to them with a url.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
But cell phones allow communication across the globe. Vocal chords can go up to about 500? feet. Cell phones win.
Anything in the body is constantly being upgraded and fed with power. I we did the same with our technology, it'd e too expensive. It IS possible, however, so, no, I win.
Nope. Pumps don't receive constant repairs and supplies. If they did, then they'd certainly last as long as the heart. They're about a million times stronger, so they win.
It's been met, and defeated.
This speaks for itself...
Just because no one likes you doesn't mean you need to go and lash out at people. It's okay, not everyone can be perfect, and maybe someday you'll learn to fit in.
My Website About Roller Coaster Design
Damn! You discovered the homosexual secret plot to brainwash people into being homosexual! However will the gays be able to continue their quest for world domination now the secret is out? Oh noes!
And you obviously don't know much about gay lifestyle, or gay sex. Your strawman version of homosexuality is quite incorrect. Most gay women do not secretly wish to be men. And this whole "start enforcing cloning" thing -- that's a great conspiracy theory, but misses the mark entirely. It's merely another example of your ignorant delusions.
The homosexuals I know just want to be accepted as normal. They want to be able to marry the person they love, and get the same benefits as other married couples. They have no desire to brainwash anyone. They have no need to brainwash anyone. And it's most often not a choice -- as I pointed out, homosexuality is found in the animal kingdom, and so appears to be natural.
As you pointed out, your loving god also saw fit to create animals that rape, eat their young, infest human hosts and eat out their eyeballs, lay their eggs in other animals which then incubate the offspring, and so on -- real loving god, there, Champ. The difference between homosexuality and these other things is, most people don't do those other things. I mean, no-one's gonna eat your eyes. The real difference is, though, that homosexuality doesn't hurt you. At all. Your pathetic little whines amount to nothing more than, "Ooo, it makes me feel funny inside." Talk about selfish! If it in no way materially harms you, nor does it harm anyone else, you have no fucking right to deny people the right to marry the person they love.
Evolution has been proven scientifically. The fact that you are too caught up in your own delusions (or are too feeble-minded) and can't understand the science is not my problem. It's yours. Evolution was pretty much proven before Darwin and Wallace independently provided the mechanism for evolution. The theory of evolution through natural selection is one of the most well-tested and well-documented theories in all of science. It is probably the best-proven theory outside of physics and chemistry.
If you want your proof, go read some books. I highly recommend The Greatest Show On Earth. It provides a series of cases that prove evolution through natural selection works, and that it is responsible for the variety of life on earth. Your Inner Fish is also quite good. But nothing can substitute an actual education on what evolution is. Which you obviously don't know. Quick question: what is a ring species, and what principle does it illustrate?
If you were truly interested in learning about the scientific proof of evolution, you'd try to do some research. I suspect, though, that you are too intellectually dishonest to do something as crass as actually read. You might accidentally learn something, and that could put your faith in danger. (Why is faith always so weak that fundies can't stand to actually read up on the same things they blather on about?)
Your willful ignorance disgusts me. You claim to embrace your humanity, but the one thing humans have over other animals is our big ol' brain. Yet you refuse to use it. Instead, you spout off ignorant talking points, and refuse to actually investigate the same things you claim to be an expert on, like evolution. It is not I that dishonors humanity. It is you, by refusing to actually learn. I'm not demanding you believe evolution to be true; but I am asking you to engage that thing that sets humanity apart from the other animals, and study those things you argue against.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
The OP proves within the OP that he doesn't have a fraction of the basic knowledge of science or the proven field of evolution necessary to be willing to waste my time on.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Wait the OP is comparing a 4 billion year old processed being(humans and animals) to technology that has now come on the scene for only about 200yrs
Op GET THE FUCK OUT OFF HERE
"Not once has there ever
Submitted by liberatedatheist on April 13, 2010 - 4:07pm.it is likely If evolution necessarily follows from this beneficial mutation---------->you assume a fasle reality
you keep forgetting that a written code allows for mutations but not evolution. by your unqualified logic the chance of a completley new code of instrcutions being written overlapping the original intelligently well thought out pre written code is based on "if's, and it is likely" typical atheist retreat using the imaginary what if scenario to explain fiction.
1. Evolutionary theory requires some mutations to go ‘uphill’ — to add information.
2. The mutations which we observe are generally neutral (they don’t change the information, or
the ‘meaning’ in the code) or else they are informationally downhill—defects which lose/corrupt
information.
3. The rare ‘beneficial’ mutations to which evolutionists cling, all appear to be like this wingless
beetle—downhill changes, losses of information which, though they may give a survival advantage,
are headed in precisely the wrong direction for evolution.
All of our real-world experience, especially in the ‘information age’, would indicate that to rely
on accidental copying mistakes to generate real information is the stuff of wishful thinking by
‘true believers’, not science.
1. Thousands of hereditary diseases in people, for instance, are caused by just such inherited
mutational defects.
2. That is, having no effect on the outcome, or the expressed meaning of the code. Using English
as an (admittedly limited) analogy, assume a message were transmitted saying ‘the enemy is now
attacking’, which accidentally suffers a one-letter substitution changing it to ‘the enemy is not
attacking’. The result is potentially disastrous, like a harmful mutation. Whereas a change to ‘tha
enemy is now attacking’ would be neutral; a change, but not affecting the end result.
• Watch for equivocation
It’s very common for evolutionary propagandists to define evolution as simply
‘change in a population over time’, as well as the idea that all life came from a single
cell, which itself came from a chemical soup. Then they produce examples of ‘evolution’
and use this to prove evolution , and then claim that Biblical creation is wrong!
However the Biblical creation model
these changes would always involve sorting or loss of
information, never the gain of
information. Even if information losing (or neutral) processes could continue for billions
of years, they would
, evolutionists must demonstrate changes that increase information. If this theory were
true, there should be
evolution is the only issue at stake in the creation/evolution controversy, we advise
against referring to any mere change as ‘evolution’—not even ‘micro-evolution’—and
reserving the term ‘evolution’ for
•
they contain; it doesn’t generate new information. The creationist Edward Blyth
discussed natural selection 25 years before Darwin, but recognized that it was a
not a creative, force.
•
known to increase information content; every known mutation has either decreased information
content or was informationally neutral. This applies even to the rare examples of
beneficial mutations.
, i.e. using the same term in different ways in the same article.does imply that organisms change over time—butalready existing (created) geneticnew information. But evolution requires the gain of newnever add up to a gain of information. Rather, to support evolutionplenty of examples, but we have yet to observe even one. SinceNatural selection is not evolution. This merely weeds out organisms and the informationconservative,Mutations are not evolution. They are copying mistakes in the genes. No mutation isyou fail to meet my challenge to prove your pagan religion of evolution through the scientific method yet again
I accept your failure as a sign of defeat
For example, beetles losing their wings. A particular winged beetle type lives on large continental
areas; the same beetle type on a small windy island has no wings.
What happened is easy to imagine. Every now and then in beetle populations, there might be a
mutational defect which prevents wings from forming. That is, the ‘wing-making’ information is
lost or scrambled in some way.
The damaged gene (a gene is like a long ‘sentence’ carrying one part of the total instructions
recorded on the DNA) will then be passed to all that beetle’s offspring, and to theirs, as it is
copied over and over. All these descendant beetles will be wingless.
However, on the windy island, the beetles which can fly tend to get blown into the sea, so not
having wings is an advantage. In time, the elimination of all the winged ones will ensure that
only those of this new ‘wingless’ variety survive, which have therefore been ‘naturally selected’.
‘There!’ says the evolutionist. ‘A favourable mutation — evolution in action!’ However, it fails
to make his case, because though beneficial to survival, it is still a defect—a loss or corruption of
information. This is the very opposite of what evolutionists need to demonstrate real evolution.
To support belief in a process which has allegedly turned molecules into man would require mutations
to add information. Showing that information-losing defects can give a survival advantage is
irrelevant, as far as evidence for real evolution is concerned.
If a beetle with such a wingless defect is living on the Australian mainland, for example, it will
have less chance to fly away from beetle-eaters, so it will be more likely to be eliminated by
‘survival of the fittest’ before it can leave offspring. Such so-called ‘natural selection’ can help to
eliminate (or at least reduce the buildup of) such genetic mistakes.
Blown away
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
Define information.
Don't insertions, duplications, etc. add information?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
cell phones are proof of a need for a creator not evolution
cellphones are designed and they have a purpose to serve your vocal chords, IF NOT FOR TEXT MESSAGING YOU CELL PHONE WOULD BE USELESS AND EVEN THEN IT SERVES YOUR FINGERS
THE NETWORK FOR COMMUNICATION IS DESIGNED IT COULD NEVER HAVE EVOLVED
AND VOCAL CHORDS EXISTED BEFOR CELL PHONES AND HUMAN HEARTS EXISTED BEFORE WATER PUMPS
AND THE HUMAN BODY IS A COMPLETE PACKAGE READY TO SERVE YOUR SPIRIT AS A LIVING SOUL AND NOTHING MAN MADE COMPARES TO IT AS A WHOLE SUM OF ALL IT PARTS OR INDIVIDUALLY. IF YOU THINK THAT YOU ARE DUMBER THAN CHANCE THEN YOUR SHOULD ADMIT YOU HAVE NO CHANCE AT BEING INTELLIGENT BECAUSE HAVE TO BE HONEST TO ADMIT HUMANS CANNOT RECREATE THE SAME TECHNOLOGY FOUND IN CREATION THEY DO IMMITATE BUT YOU FAIL TO ADMIT ALL EXAMPLES OF CREATION REQUIRE A CREATOR
AGAIN YOU LOSER IN DENIAL
NOONE ON THIS THREAD HAS MET MY CHALLENGE AND COME WITHIN AN ATHEISTS BRAIN CELL OF DEFEATING REALITY OF THE NEED FOR A CREATOR VERSES YOUR PAGAN RELIGION OF EVOLUTION SO YOU ARE A LIAR AND YOU THRIVE ON MISINFORMATION AND YOU SPREAD MIND POLLUTION
Just because ATHEIST DRONE MINION OF AN ANCIENT PAGAN RELIGION likes MY HARSH TRUTH doesn't mean you need to go and lash out at people. It's okay, not everyone can be perfect, and maybe someday you'll learn to fit in WITH NORMAL PEOPLE WHO DO NOT RELY ON CHANCE OVER BILLIONS OF IMAGINARY YEARS TO DEFINE REALITY TO THE NEXT GENERATION
FACTS ABOUT CAVE MEN
PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN CAVES ALL THROUGHOUT HISTORY AND EVEN TODAY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CONSIDERED OUTCASTS FROM A CIVILISED SOCIETY
EG. STUPID PAGAN TERRORISTS
AGAIN YOU F A I L TO ME E T MY CHALLENGE YET AGAIN AND AGAIN
LOL YOU WOULD IF YOU COULD BUT YOU CAN'T SO YOU WON'T
YOU SHOULD ACCEPT YOU ARE A FAILED REBEL CHUMP WITH CHIMP ENVY ;LIKE AL THE ATHEISTS ON THIS THREAD
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
Dude, nobody can prove your version of evolution, because it just doesn't exist.
You obviously have no fucking clue what you're talking about. You don't even know what evolution is, so how can we "prove" it to you? You spout this nonsense about "information," when it has been shown beyond doubt that evolution works, that beneficial changes in genetics occur. But you don't know that, because you are fucking ignorant.
Trying to explain evolution to you is like trying to describe the color of the sky to a blind man. You just don't have the necessary referent to understand anything we say. All you have is this nonsense version of evolution that doesn't even come close to the actual idea.
The failure here is yours. But you'll never see it. And that is willful ignorance, which is a dishonor to humanity. And if there is a god, I doubt he'd appreciate you failing to use the gift he gave you: your brain.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Submitted by butterbattle on April 16, 2010 - 10:53am.
Define information.
Don't insertions, duplications, etc. add information?
-----
IF YOU ALLOW THAT THE ALREADY WRITTEN CODE ONLY ALLOWS FOR LIMITATIONS NOT EVOLUTION
YOU ARE USING INTELLIGENT DESIGN TO REFUTE THE NEED FOR IT. WHY?
IT DOES NOT TAKE BILLIONS OF YEARS FOR YOUR WORDS TO ASSEMBLE NOR DO YOU RELY ON CHANCE OR EVOLUTION TO FORM A FINISHED SENTENCE.
WE ARE INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO KNOW A WRITTEN LANGUAGE IS PROOF OF A WRITER WITH INTELLIGENCE WHEN WE ARE ABLE TO RELATE TO IT AS WRITTEN INFORMATION EVEN ON A MOLECULAR SCALE
PLEASE KEEP UP YOUR CREATIVE ENERGY YOU ARE SHOWING YOU WANT TO KNOW BUT YOU ARE NOT READY TO BELIEVE BECAUSE YOU ALREADY INVESTED YOUR TRUST AND FAITH AND HOPE IN A NONLIVING PAGAN IDOL (NATURE) WHOM YOU WORSHIP AS YOUR MOTHER
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
Okay. Can you define information?
What's the difference between limitations and evolution?
Evolution is change over time, right? Don't mutations change the genome? Over time, doesn't the genome change more?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Okay. Can you define
Submitted by butterbattle on April 16, 2010 - 12:09pm.Okay. Can you define information?
mind over matter wrote:What's the difference between limitations and evolution?---------->limitations prevent evolution
Evolution is change over time, right? Don't mutations change the genome? Over time, doesn't the genome change more?
FOUR IMPORTANT FACTS ABOUT MUTATIONS
1 - Rare effects. Mutations are very rare. They hardly ever occur in the natural world. Their very rarity dooms the possibility that they could produce the prolific number of plant and animal species found in our world.
Mutations are simply too rare to have produced all the necessary traits of even one life form, much less millions. For each plant and animal has millions upon millions of specific characteristics.
2 - Random effects. Mutations are always random—always! They are never purposive or directed. Yet the millions of characteristics in a living creature are very special: Each one is needed and serves an important function.
A mutation is a random, wild, event. It is something like an automobile crash: It comes suddenly, when least expected, and no one can predict the outcome. But one thing you can be sure of: It will produce damage.
3 - Not helpful. Evolution requires improvement, but mutations never help anyone. They only weaken or injure..
4 - Very harmful effects. Nearly all mutations are harmful. In most instances, they weaken or damage the organism so seriously that it will not long survive. If it does survive, its offspring tend to eventually die out.
Mutations are rare, random, almost never an improvement, always weakening or harmful, and often fatal to the organism or its offspring.
Why mutations? Why then do the evolutionists cling to mutations as the means of producing species crossovers?
They stay with mutations because, apart from the foolish theory of natural selection, they have nothing else!
At this point, someone might ask how we can be sure that mutations are always random and negative. This is known for a certainty because research scientists have spent decades carrying on research experiments with X rays, radiation, and chemicals, in the hopes of producing new species—and thus proving that evolutionary theory is true. But they have totally failed.
if you believe in the pagan religion of evolution that is all you can say without being a liar professing it as science without really considering the only true alternative being the true revelation of creation by a SUPERNATURAL INTELLIGENT CREATOR other than creation by humans
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
Is this your definition of information? I don't understand what you're saying.
So, information is whatever only allows for limitations but not evolution? So, if mutations can't add 'information,' then they can't add whatever only allow for limitations but not evolution? That doesn't make any sense to me.
If this is your definition of information, please clarify. If not, provide one.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
mind over matter wrote:AGAIN
Submitted by nigelTheBold on April 16, 2010 - 11:24am.
mind over matter wrote:Dude, nobody can prove your version of evolution, because it just doesn't exist.---------->>>true noone on this thead has met my challenge to prove my version of evolution because they look stupid when applying actual science to to prove a pagan man made religion being spun as evolution, true it just doesn't exist .
You obviously have no fucking clue what you're talking about. ---------->> lol NOOOOOOO, it is you who has no clue what I am talking about!
You don't even know what evolution is, so --->> YES I DO
how can we "prove" it to you?--------------->>>>> you would if you could but you can't so you won't, ever!!!! E V E R!!!!!
You spout this nonsense about "information,"------>>>>information is a requirment for confirming intelligence not bullshit which is a waste porduct, I am sure you know very well where that comes from.
when it has been shown beyond doubt that evolution works,------------->NO it has not , not by you or any chump like you thus I have posted my challenge in real present day time to real atheist chumps claiming to be rational in response
that beneficial changes in genetics occur. --------->typical atheist retreat to the common changes in genetics rant after all other facts of real science make you look ignorant
FOUR IMPORTANT FACTS ABOUT MUTATIONS
1 - Rare effects. Mutations are very rare. They hardly ever occur in the natural world. Their very rarity dooms the possibility that they could produce the prolific number of plant and animal species found in our world.
Mutations are simply too rare to have produced all the necessary traits of even one life form, much less millions. For each plant and animal has millions upon millions of specific characteristics.
2 - Random effects. Mutations are always random—always! They are never purposive or directed. Yet the millions of characteristics in a living creature are very special: Each one is needed and serves an important function.
A mutation is a random, wild, event. It is something like an automobile crash: It comes suddenly, when least expected, and no one can predict the outcome. But one thing you can be sure of: It will produce damage.
3 - Not helpful. Evolution requires improvement, but mutations never help anyone. They only weaken or injure.
4 - Very harmful effects. Nearly all mutations are harmful. In most instances, they weaken or damage the organism so seriously that it will not long survive. If it does survive, its offspring tend to eventually die out.
Mutations are rare, random, almost never an improvement, always weakening or harmful, and often fatal to the organism or its offspring.
Why mutations? Why then do the evolutionists cling to mutations as the means of producing species crossovers?
They stay with mutations because, apart from the foolish theory of natural selection, they have nothing else!
At this point, someone might ask how we can be sure that mutations are always random and negative. This is known for a certainty because research scientists have spent decades carrying on research experiments with X rays, radiation, and chemicals, in the hopes of producing new species—and thus proving that evolutionary theory is true. But they have totally failed.
but you don't know that, because you are fucking ignorant.----------->> yes this statement really applies to you
you still failed to meet my challenge to justify your perverted attitude based on science fiction from ancient pagan times
I accept your failure as a sign of defeat
you are a true failed rebel with pride
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
Nice cut'n'paste, mom. However, this simply proves that you FAIL to understand evolution, or the nature of genetics. I accept your failure as admission of defeat.
However, I'll answer these fallacious assertions, so those reading at home realize you really don't have any clue.
Incorrect. Mutations happen quite frequently. You yourself probably have several mutations from your parents' DNA. Most mutations cause little or no change in phenotype, and so are selection-neutral. Some are detrimental. Many of these are so detrimental, the female does not even realize she's pregnant; the fertilized egg is flushed with the regular menstruation.
With this one, you are just completely wrong. Mutations happen frequently, not rarely.
With this one, you are partially correct. Mutations are always random. It is, however, nothing at all like an automobile crash. That is a stupid analogy.
Mutations are random. Selection, however, is not random. Selection is the key to understanding evolution. It is so key, in fact, that the modern understanding of evolution is sometimes referred to as "the theory of evolution by means of natural selection." Selection ensures the mutations that reproduce are those that help an organism survive in its environment. This means the mutations that harm an organism's chance of survival and reproduction will not propagate. This is what makes the random mutations end up being not random.
Imagine you have a pile of rocks of various sizes, all the way from sand up to rocks the size of your head. They are all jumbled randomly. Imagine then that a stream tumbles over that pile of rocks. What will happen? All the sand will wash away. Now your pile of rocks is less random than it was before. Now imagine the stream really picks up energy, and pulls away the pebbles. Your pile of rocks is even less random. Imagine the stream keeps growing in intensity, until the only rocks left are those that are very large. Now your pile of rocks is no longer random.
But what happens to the other rocks? As the stream loses energy and slows down, the other rocks all fall out. First to fall out would be the larger rocks, say those the size of a fist. Then, further down, those the size of dog-food. And so on, until the last to fall out would be the sand. Now look at your stream from start to finish -- it looks as if someone has sorted the rocks, so the largest are near the start of the stream, and as you go down the stream, the rocks keep getting smaller, until only sand is left. Why, not only is your pile of rocks no longer random, it's completely sorted!
Here is an example of a natural process taking randomness, and creating order. That is, information has increased! All because there is a filter -- the strength of the stream as it flows down to the sea.
Natural selection is evolution's filter. First, a mutation must result in something that is able to live. This filters out the worst mutations right away, and as I said earlier, the mother might not even realize she ever carried a fertilized egg. Then the egg must develop into a fetus, which filters out the next set of bad mutations. Then the fetus must develop into a baby, and the baby must be able to survive outside the mother. This filters out the next set of bad mutations. By the time the baby is born, most negative mutations have been filtered out completely. Almost all of the surviving mutations are either neutral (the majority), or beneficial (the rare ones). In humans, we protect our children, and so a few mutations that would normally doom a baby in the wild are able to survive. In most cases, these harmful mutations will never result in offspring, and so the harmful mutation dies when the person dies.
So, do you get how selection works?
Very wrong. It's rather trivial to show how randomness can result in improvement, in the presence of a filter. There's an entire field of programming called "genetic algorithms" which relies on randomness to create better programs. So not only is this assertion wrong, it's easy to show that it's wrong.
Yes! This is exactly how evolution works. So you do understand!
So -- imagine that, against all odds, a beneficial mutation does happen. You have just stated the bad mutations will cause the organism to die before it can reproduce. So the bad mutations will be "selected out." This leaves only the mutations that are neutral (do neither good nor harm), and those rare mutations that are beneficial. Those are the only mutations that will survive to reproduce, just as you said.
That's really the very most important point about evolution, and you stated it yourself!
Here you contradict yourself -- you say "almost never an improvement," and then state, "always weakening or harmful." The first is true; the second is not. Also, mutations are not as rare as you seem to think. As I said, you most likely have some mutations in your DNA. Those mutations just happen to be in areas that aren't important to your body.
The "often fatal to the organism or its offspring" is the whole important point of evolution. Of those bad mutations don't survive to reproduce, they won't affect the population. The only mutations that affect a population are those that do survive, which by your statement above, are only the good ones, or the ones that are neutral. You are so close to understanding evolution.
Actually, you understand it better than I gave you credit for. I apologize for that.
Uhm... can you name a single experiment like that? That isn't how scientists study evolution. That isn't even how evolution works.
That's not how species come to be. "Species" is merely a convenience term we use. What happens is this: a single beneficial mutation enters the population. As you said, negative mutations are filtered out. So small, incremental changes occur, all of which make the population better suited to the environment. These are small changes. There is never a baby born to a mother, in which the baby is a different species from the mother. That's just not how it works. It takes many generations of tiny changes.
That's why I asked you about ring species. They demonstrate this exact thing, only spatially, not through time. They prove this is not only possible, but it happens all the time.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
mind over matter wrote: IF
Submitted by butterbattle on April 16, 2010 - 2:07pm.
mind over matter wrote:Is this your definition of information? I don't understand what you're saying.
So, information is whatever only allows for limitations but not evolution? So, if mutations can't add 'information,' then they can't add whatever only allow for limitations but not evolution? That doesn't make any sense to me.
If this is your definition of information, please clarify. If not, provide one.
------>>>information comes from a source of knowledge which implies a living source
now when you question me about the origin of information I will tell you it comes from the CREATOR not the creation.
the problem you ignore about information is the lack of information needed to start the process of your pagan religion of evolution from non living matter, in fact it is the notion that rocks and chemicals can become living organisms, just add time, chance, and possibly water, as if raw chemicals were merely seeds
that is NOT a highly plausible natural-process mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to give rise to reproducing life in all its diversity as we see it today on every level working in harmony
I said limitations prevent evolution that is to say evolution does not occur despite changes being added . thoses changes are not new infornation being written by a non intelligent non living entity. information is a requirment for intelligence not chance mutations that are not intelligent and able to write new information to turn a lizard into a beaver.
Quote:It's a change in the genome, right? Why is it nearly always harmful? ------------->>>Nearly all mutations are harmful. In most instances, they weaken or damage the organism so seriously that it will not long survive. If it does survive, its offspring tend to eventually die out.
we can be sure that mutations are always random and negative. This is known for a certainty because research scientists have spent decades carrying on research experiments with X rays, radiation, and chemicals, in the hopes of producing new species—and thus proving that evolutionary theory is true. But they have totally failed. More on this later.
--->Evolution would require new information. Vast, new information banks in the DNA would be required, for a new species to be produced. Mutations could never accomplish that, any more than swinging a wooden bat in a china closet would improve the glassware
The great fruit fly experiment. The humble fruit fly was selected as the best single creature to torture with radiation. The reason was its extremely short reproductive cycle. A new generation of fruit flies occurs every few days. In addition, the creature is large enough that it can be seen far easier than worms or microbes.
Since the late 1920s, hundreds of thousands of generations of fruit flies have been irradiated with X rays and nuclear radiation. —Yet in all that time, two facts have emerged: (1) They have been damaged, not helped. (2) No new species have been produced. The fruit flies have remained fruit flies—in spite of experiencing countless millions of mutations.
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
This post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. The direction of evolution is dictated solely by what gives a survival advantage. It is impossible for something to give a survival advantage and not be a positive change from an evolutionary standpoint. Evolution does not have some end goal independent of the process. The end goal is what gives us the best survival advantage in a given environment.
Once again this post shows that you do not understand evolution as your analogy does not account for several important factors in the process. In your example you have the sentence being analogous to the genetic code, and the change in the sentence being the mutation. However it is important to recognize that the interpretation of the sentence is analogous to the environment. In your example changing "now" to "not" would indeed be detrimental as long as the interpretation of the information is always the same. What if the person receiving the message all of a sudden changed his understanding of what those words mean. Then the sentence containing the mutation could potentially have a higher success rate than the original sentence.
To illustrate this lets take your beetle example. The original interpretation is that the beetles with wings are going to be more successful at reproducing than the beetles without wings. This is analogous to the original sentence being better at communicating the attack than the mutated sentence. But then nature will occasionally change, this is represented by the presence of the wind that wasnt there before. This change in nature now interprets the wingless beetles as being better for survival than the winged beetles. Now the mutated sentence is better than the original. Even though the mutation was original harmful and destructive, it is always possible for the environment to change in a way that interprets the mutation as being beneficial.
you always talk about evolution not being able to create new information while it most certainly can. Our genetic code is useful only because it dictates what proteins our body has. If there is a significant change in the genetic code in will result in a change in the resulting protein. Lets say i have a gene. A point mutation occurs, meaning that a single base pair was changed. This new base pair dictates that a different amino acid is going to be used in the construction of the protein. This new amino acid will cause the structure of the protein to be fundamentally altered. The resulting protein is no longer able to perform the function it originally performed. You would argue that the information was destroyed and it appears to be so. But now what if the environment all of a sudden changes. This useless protein that is just floating around in the cell now finds itself very useful and will convey a survival advantage to the organism. This mutated gene contains completely new information! The information necessary for the cell to produce the new protein was not in the original gene so the mutated gene contains completely new information. The random mutation is given meaning by the environment which is the interpreting force, and the new mutated gene is now very likely to be passed on to its offspring. That is just one of dozens of ways new information can be created through mutation
The important thing to remember is that the information in the genetic code is only considered information and given meaning if it can be interpreted in a beneficial way by the environment.
Once again information can be created through mutations. And information is only considered information because the environment dictates that it has meaning. If a fish in the bottom of the ocean was found to have genes that would produce lungs, those genes would be utter gibberish because they would create an absolutely useless structure much like most of our harmful mutations. but if the environment were to change enough, then maybe these seemingly harmful mutations turn out to be really meaningful
If it is beneficial to survival then it cannot be a defect. lets look at this example from the other direction. What if all of the beetle on the island originally were wingless. Then all of a sudden some mutations happened and one beetle developed wings. Well on this windy island this "new" information would be a defect and would quickly get wiped from the gene pool. Information is only information and is only meaningful because the environment dictates that it should be so.
So you are going on about how evolution cant add information again. that is just not true. I'll try to explain it in another way. The Dna molecule contains information inherently in its structure aka the arrangement of its base pairs. How DNA came into existence is irrelevant to evolution but is being studied by the field of abiogenesis. Once you have a DNA molecule, there are several ways in which you can add information. First, the structure of DNA allows base pairs to be easily added on to either end creating longer DNA strands. This comes down to the chemistry. DNA strands are constantly being built every time your cells replicate. This is probably occurring in hundreds of millions of cells in your body right now. This is scientific fact. Dna molecules can also be extended through mutations called insertions. a new base pair can randomly find its way into the dna molecule making it longer. This inherently adds new information. It doesnt even have to be just one base pair, entire segments of DNA often get inserted into the molecule making the strands significantly longer. All of this adds new information. This new information can become meaningful information if the environment dictates that it is so aka if it is naturally selected for. Evolution is a fact and a necessity.
I Am My God
The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence
Ah, yes. This old canard. So you not only misunderstand evolution, but you also misunderstand information.
"Information" does not imply a living source. Not at all. Just as hydrogen and oxygen don't "know" what water is, they contain all the information necessary for making water. Your idea of "information" is a strawman.
So now you should also get educated about entropy, and what "information" really means.
You realize abiogenisis is different from evolution, right? Those are two separate fields of study. And as it turns out, we have several good models of how life could start, starting from simple chemical reactions. The difficulty is in selecting the one that most likely occurred, not in coming up with a model in the first place.
Again, you demonstrate your ignorance. Your misrepresentation of evolution indicates you have no desire to actually learn about what you speak. You are, as they say, speaking out of your ass.
Has anyone else ever heard of this experiment? Do you have a reference for this experiment, mom?
As I said above, this isn't how evolution works. You obviously have no idea how evolution works, so your denial of the evidence is merely your own ignorance.
YOU HAVE FAILED MY CHALLENGE TO DEMONSTRATE YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF EVOLUTION! I accept your failure as an admission of defeat.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
you failed to meet my challenge because your delusional pagan religion of evolution has no foundation in reality thus arguing about mutations through selection is futile it does not demonstrate evolution you merely stated that there is an ability to adapt not change from a man to woman because you are lost in your environment and want mutations to justify your confusion and pride.
can you give an example of a genetic mutation or "evolutionary" process which can be seen to increase in the information in the genome?............????????????????????????????????
When living things on Earth are examined a manifest design is to be observed, every living thing is furnished with extremely complex systems that enable it to play it's role in the overall system to the best of it ability. Since life is designed and organized it certainly must have a creator, and that creator has been introducing itself to man kind since the beginnings of the world.
In Darwin's time belief that microbes could emanate easily from non-living materials was very common but five years after the publication of Darwin's book "The Origin of Species" the famous French Biologist Louis Pasteur scientifically refuted these myths that laid ground for Evolution. Pasteur; after lengthily studies and experiments reached this very important conclusion:
" CAN MATTER ORGANIZE ITSELF? NO! TODAY, THERE IS NO CIRCUMSTANCE KNOWN UNDER WOULD ONE COULD AFFIRM THAT MICROSCOPIC BEINGS HAVE COME INTO THE WORLD WITHOUT PARENTS RESEMBLING THEMSELVES." Louis Pasteur- Fox & Dose Origin of Life, p. 4-5.
"UNFORTUNATELY, THE ORIGIN OF THE CELL REMAINS A QUESTION THAT IS THE MURKIEST ASPECT OF THE WHOLE THEORY OF EVOLUTION." - Alexander Oparin- Origin of Life p.196.
"TODAY AS WE LEAVE THE 20th CENTURY, WE STILL FACE THE BIGGEST UNSOLVED PROBLEM THAT WE HAD WHEN WE ENTERED THE 20th CENTURY: HOW DID LIFE ORIGINATE ON EARTH?" -Jeffrey Bada Earth, Feb. 1998.
A living cell is comprised of thousands of tiny parts that work in harmony. To make a comparison within the cell there are power stations, high-tech factories, a complex data bank, huge storage systems, advanced refineries and a seemingly conscience cell membrane which control what enters and leaves the cell. In order for the cell to survive all of these organelles have to exist at the same time, it is impossible that such an intricate and complex system could have emerged as a result of coincidences.
Today not even the most sophisticated laboratory has been able to produce a single living cell from NON-living matter, indeed this is fully acknowledged to be impossible, efforts to produce living cells from non-living matter had been abandoned. But the theory of evolution claims that this system which man with all it's intelligence, knowledge and technology can not succeed in reproducing came into existence by chance.
"THE CHANCE THAT HIGHER LIFE FORMS MIGHT HAVE EMERGED BY CHANCE IS COMPARABLE WITH THE CHANCE THAT A TORNADO SWEEPING THROUGH A JUNK-YARD MIGHT ASSEMBLE A BOEING 747 FROM THE MATERIALS THEREIN." Fred Hoyle, Nature, 12 Nov. 1981.
Modern Bio-Chemistry has also revealed the unimaginably complex design of the DNA molecule, the structure of the DNA molecule was discover by two scientist James Watson and Francis Crick in 1955; their discovery demonstrated that life was much more complex than anyone had previously envisioned. Himself a confirmed Evolutionist Francis Crick who had received a Noble Prize for this discovery, came to confess that a structure like DNA could never have emerged by chance.
DNA is a giant molecule that exist in the nucleus of the cell, every detail of a living beings physical and physiological make-up is coded is this double helix; all the information about our bodies from the color of our eyes to the structure of our internal organs and the shape and the functions of our cells are programed in sections called genes in the DNA. The DNA code is made up of the sequins of four different bases; if we think of each one of these bases as a letter DNA can be likened to a data-bank made up of an alphabet of four letters; (example A- Adenin, T- Thymin, C-Cytosin and G-Guanin) all the information of a living thing is stored in this data-bank. If we attempt to write down the information in the DNA this would take up approximately one million pages; This is equal to an encyclopedia 40 times bigger than the encyclopedia puritanical, which is one of man kinds greatest single accumulations of information; but this incredible information is stored in the tiny nucleus of our cells, measuring about a thousandth of a millimeter in size. It is calculated that a DNA chain small enough to fill a teaspoon has the capacity to store all of the information contained in all the books ever written.
Of course such an amazing structure could never have been formed by chance. The theory of evolution; which sees life as the result of mere coincidences Hazards happenings is helpless to explain anything in the face of the incredible complexity of DNA. It is evident that DNA, the cell and all living beings are products of an exalted and perfect creation and since such a creation truly exists, then there also must be a creator.
Imaginary Mechanisms of Evolution
The evolutionist scenario that life generated from non-living matter by chance is disproved by science today in addition there is no mechanism in nature that carry out the alleged process called evolution; there is no natural mechanism were by a single cell can be transformed into a more complex living creature then go on and become the ancestor of millions of different living species.
Natural selection only eliminates weak, disabled and sick individuals and ensures the permanence and health of a particular species, it has no evolutionary power. Darwin was also aware of this problem, this is why he confessed in "The Origin of Species" that:
"NATURAL SELECTION CAN DO NOTHING UNTIL FAVORABLE VARIATIONS CHANCE TO OCCUR." The Origin of Species, p.177.
All the other efforts of the evolutionists in the 20th century could do nothing by confirm that natural selection had NO EVOLUTIONARY power. A famous evolutionist the English Paleontologist Colin Patterson admitted this when he said:
" NO ONE HAS EVER PRODUCED A SPECIES BY MECHANISMS OF NATURAL SELECTION. NO ONE HAS EVER GOT NEAR IT. AND MOST OF THE CURRENT ARGUMENT IN NEO-DARWINISM IS ABOUT THIS QUESTION." Colin Patterson - BBC.
The theory of evolution now holds that living things are differentiated from one another and develop as a result of mutations.
This can not be true, for mutations only damage information in the DNA and give only harm to a living being. No beneficial mutation has yet been observed either in nature or in laboratories; since mutations do not add new genetic information it is IMPOSSIBLE for living beings to acquire new organs through mutation, no reptile could ever acquire wings nor could an eyeless creature develop eyes by mutation.
For decades evolutionist subjected many different living beings to the effects of radiation and chemicals in an attempt to obtain favorable mutations but all they ever ended up with disabled, deficient or baron creatures; countless experiments carried out on fruit flies have shown that the effects of mutations ARE NOT beneficial but rather destructive or fatal. Mutations disrupt the perfect DNA code of a living thing and turn it into a FREAK of nature.
The truth is very evident life has such a complex design that can never come about by chance. A mechanical watch can not be formed as a result of a coincidental assembling and it proves of an intelligent watch maker. Likewise life and bodies are a superior design that proves the existence of a creator.
The whole universe is an outcome of a flawless creation, the exalted wisdom, power and knowledge of a creator shows itself in everything it has created; even the creation of man himself is a miracle that discloses a fact that the theory of evolution strives to sweep out of sight
yet again you truly failed to meet my challenge and intead displayed a copy and waste rant
I still accept your failure as a sign of defeat and your inability to start from the beginning not the end of my challenge which means you really get to look stupid if you do apply the scientific method
also 1's and 0's in programming ? the fact you are programming proves you need to write a code and that requires a writer which is the source the 1 not the 0
you are a mind bubble
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
This is my last reply. You obviously have no intent to actually learn about evolution. You'd rather remain ignorant.
Richard Lenski ran an ingenious and simple experiment, using bacteria. The bacteria in question gained the genetic information required to metabolize citrate. Other changes occurred, as well, as the separate populations all evolved. But the most exciting change, and the one that destroys your "information" argument, is the change that allowed the bacteria to metabolize citrate.
Now, I know you won't read the article. Nor will you understand the implications. You'll continue with your pig-ignorant assertions that evolution can't "add information" (whatever the fuck that means). You continue to parade your ignorance like a tiny penis by declaring mutations cannot be beneficial. But everyone else reading this will realize you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
I've wasted enough time on your illiterate posts, and your vast and irrectifiable ignorance.
I accept your failure to demonstrate any knowledge whatsoever as a sign of your defeat.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Once again you clearly have no idea what evolution is. Until you can describe it just a little bit that shows that you might have an idea what it is there is no way we are going to be able to prove to you it is a fact. I can't teach you how to drive if you think that I'm trying to prove that the car can magically fly. A single organism cannot undergo evolution. Evolution can only happen from one generation to the next and your wants or desires have nothing to do with it.
My entire last post provided several examples of increasing the information in the genome. One being insertion mutations. Also remember that the information is useless if it doesnt have a meaningful and positive expression for the organism. Whether or not the information is meaningful or positive depends solely upon environmental conditions.
there is no manifest design that requires a creator. There are so many things in nature that are complex yet can be explained by physical processes. The earth is a very complexly structured planet. It is composed of many layers all of which interact to produce a habitable environment. Heck it even has developed a magnetic field to protect us from the sun's rays. This is all explainable without a creator just like the complexity of humans can be xplained naturally.
hey guess what cells evolved too. the first cells which we can observe through fossils dont have anywhere near all of the organelles.
cell membranes are composed of things called phospholipids. If you take a bunch of phospholipids that have no order to them and put them in water, they will self assemble to form cell membranes. and like i said the first cells which we can observe through fossils dont have anywhere near all of the organelles you claim are neccessary.
this is not acknowledged to be impossible. We have created in laboratories amino acids and nucleotides and polymer chains, all of the building blocks for simple life.
well we have recreated simple dna molecules spontaneously. If he ever did say that which i doubt, he has been proven wrong.
yea its cool what nature can do
natural selection doesnt cause variation, mutations do. Natural selection is the environments way of saying which mutations are going to be passed on to the next generation
i thought i told you to never say no beneficial mutations have ever been observed again because like three posts back i gave you about 15 scientifically observed beneficial mutations, there are thousands more. I cant help you if you just ignore scientific facts. Myself as well as others have also shown how new information can be created. You Are Wrong.
flawless creation, ha. Tell that to the kids born blind, the five year olds with cancer, and anyone born with a genetic disorder. If God exists he is sadistic and despises man. You wouldnt torture a child if you love him. Its in your fucked up logic as a fundie that god tortures us because he loves us.
I Am My God
The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence
Let me post what I think we've all been thinking:
"That's the distance you'd have to move your pinky in order to not sound like an idiot. I know the burden of pressing shift to capitalize is a great one, but c'mon Turing, you can do better than that. I used to type emails in caps like yours, but then I decided that I didn't want a job mixing concrete."
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India
DNA strands can gain 'information' by the processes of gene duplication and insertion. This has been observed. Duplicated genes are free to mutate, since the original copy maintains the original function of the gene.
The ultimate source of new information, in the sense of new potential knowledge for us to discover, is random processes, since purely logical processes and reasoning can only rearrange and reinterpret what is already known.
Creativity involves randomly rearranging known information into novel patterns. We can approximate random processes by carefully arranged deterministic ones, such as by carefully balancing processes leading to different outcomes, so that very small variations in the strength of either process will be sufficient to change the outcome completely.
So about 'information' you are 100% wrong.
'Information', in the low-level scientific sense, only refers to the information listing the position and momentum of the fundamental particles in a system, and that is the only kind which is conserved in any sense.
New information in the sense of the genetic sequence of DNA defining our proteins is effectively generated by the process of random mutation. The useful information is then selected out by survival.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
mind over matter wrote: 3.
Submitted by liberatedatheist on April 16, 2010 - 3:39pm.The important thing to remember is that the information in the genetic code is only considered information and given meaning if it can be interpreted in a beneficial way by the environment.
---------------------->>what? here we have yet another atheist with dementia. who claims he is a not religious and worships nature while referring to the enviroment (nature) as a person who is alive and intelligent and is able to interpret information in the genetic code of all living things!!! and then decide what to change the organism into .
LOL LOL LOL LOL and you want to insult my intelligence?
the dna molecule contains written information which represents the reality of an intelligent being responsible for that written code but in your case it was not evolution or the envirionment as you imply through your closet pagan religion of evolution.
this is your biggest fail yet.
no information is created through being damaged. you dot not apply mutations to a living thing and then say look it is has new information that makes you look sound like a chump with chimp envy!
your claims of mutation through selection have no foundations in reality since it has never been shown where the original single celled ancestor of all living things got its information to reproduce from non living matter and then create all the harmonious complex living systems of diversity. and remember you have to know how complex a single cell really is to to demonstrate you delusion of mutations and selection.
The end goal is what gives us the best survival advantage in a given environment. and that is technology not millions of years to evolve furcoats claws and an atheist doggie style queer attitude. surely you would rather wear a warm jacket and water proof woots a hat etc.. carry a gun to fend off wild predators build a shelter with indoor plumbing electric indoor weather controls, communications devices etc....no evolution no environmental geneticcode interpretationnot natural selection and faith in chance a need to be the fittest .....
you have show you are not qualified to meet my challenge to prove your pagan religion of evolution through the scieintific method, you are useless to your cause
just show me an example of abiogenesis in present day so you at least have a basis for the evolution you preach
I accept your failure as a another exposure of a fraud closet pagan in denial
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
No. You do not have any intelligence. You are a fucking idiot.
The environment defines what will survive and what won't, that's all, simply by its attributes, such as climate, type of food available, whether it is open grassland or jungle, etc, which determines what mutations are going to survive better than others.
Just another reason why conscious design and purpose is not required.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
since the scientific method shows evolution has no foundation in origins from non living matter,
can you give an example of a genetic mutation or "evolutionary" process which can be seen to increase in the information in the genome?
can you name one organism that had no parent? as in the first living ancestor of all life that has ever existed?
Evolution has no intelligence. It is totally dumb. It does not evaluate, plan, organize or have the ability to intentionally change something based on information of any sort. For evolution to create a sophisticated program powerful enough to run a human being is absolutely astounding for intelligent scientists to even consider it. It is absolutely impossible aside from YAHUWAH.
To produce DNA, it requires over 75 different types of proteins. Yet DNA is essential for creating proteins Proteins are required to make DNA and DNA is required to make proteins. Both extremely complicated systems are necessary at the same time and must be fully functioning in order to create the other.
DNA is like the information on a CD-ROM. Proteins are like the plastic CD-ROM. RNA is like the CD-ROM drive. In order for DNA to evolve and be useful it requires the DNA (complex information), several proteins (Plastic CD-ROM) and the RNA (the CD-ROM drive) for this program to have a chance to work. However, neither DNA, RNA or Protein would evolve by natural selection because they require the existence of the other systems. Evolution is hopelessly inadequate for producing DNA, not to mention the absolutely astounding complexity of a single cell.
Biochemist Dr. Arthur WILDER SMITH:
the scientific method only shows all living things fully formed and fullyfunctional living things that can only come from livings with purpose and design and diversity and harmony already in place.
The truth is very evident life has such a complex design that can never come about by chance. A mechanical watch can not be formed as a result of a coincidental assembling and it proves of an intelligent watch maker. Likewise life and bodies are a superior design that proves the existence of a creator.
The whole universe is an outcome of a flawless creation, the exalted wisdom, power and knowledge of a creator shows itself in everything it has created; even the creation of man himself is a miracle that discloses a fact that the theory of evolution strives to sweep out of sight
All the other efforts of the evolutionists in the 20th century could do nothing by confirm that natural selection had NO EVOLUTIONARY power. A famous evolutionist the English Paleontologist Colin Patterson admitted this when he said:
" NO ONE HAS EVER PRODUCED A SPECIES BY MECHANISMS OF NATURAL SELECTION. NO ONE HAS EVER GOT NEAR IT. AND MOST OF THE CURRENT ARGUMENT IN NEO-DARWINISM IS ABOUT THIS QUESTION." Colin Patterson - BBC.
20th century science has also demonstrated that there are systems in organisms with extremely 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 definitely demolishes the evolutionist claim that living beings have evolved gradually by natural selection through minor changes over a long period of time.
When it was clear that the mechanism of natural selection proposed by Darwin had no evolutionary power; evolutionist had to make a FUNDAMENTAL change in the theory in addition to the concept of natural selection they added a second mechanism called mutation. Mutations are alterations or distortions that take place in the DNA of living beings mostly as a result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. The theory of evolution now holds that living things are differentiated from one another and develop as a result of mutations.
This can not be true, for mutations only damage information in the DNA and give only harm to a living being. No beneficial mutation has yet been observed either in nature or in laboratories; since mutations do not add new genetic information it is IMPOSSIBLE for living beings to acquire new organs through mutation, no reptile could ever acquire wings nor could an eyeless creature develop eyes by mutation.
For decades evolutionist subjected many different living beings to the effects of radiation and chemicals in an attempt to obtain favorable mutations but all they ever ended up with disabled, deficient or baron creatures; countless experiments carried out on fruit flies have shown that the effects of mutations ARE NOT beneficial but rather destructive or fatal. Mutations disrupt the perfect DNA code of a living thing and turn it into a FREAK of nature.
This is why Professor Richard Dawkins one of the most renowned advocates of theory of evolution of our day hesitates when he is asked to give a SINGLE example that increases the genetic information.
you have not met my challenge to prove the pagan religion of evolution where nature is worshipped as a mother who creates all things
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
Okay, so information is knowledge that comes from an intelligent, living source?
Why is this necessary for evolution, and what kind of "knowledge" does the genome need?
Okay, but why are nearly all mutations harmful? As in, why does the mutation almost always weaken or damage the organisms?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
but why are nearly all mutations harmful?
there is simply no evidence that evolution of life forms has ever occurred in the past.
The study of mutations is crucial it is all that the evolutionists have left!
If mutations cannot produce evolution, then nothing can.
far from being beneficial, mutations constitute something terrible that ruin and destroy organisms, either in the first generation or soon thereafter. Not only is it impossible for mutations to cause the evolutionary process,they weaken or terminate the life process! The reason we all fear X-rays is because they are a powerful means of producing mutations that bring damage and death.
It is well known among many knowledgeable scientists that if evolution could possibly occur, mutations would have to accomplish it. There simply is no other mechanism that can make changes within the DNA. Natural selection has consistently failed, so mutations are the last hope of a majority of the evolutionists today.Evolution requires purposive changes. Mutations are only chance occurrences and cannot accomplish what is needed for organic evolution.
Capitalizing on the theme, evolutionists explain in their textbooks that it is mutations which have provided us with the millions of beneficial fractures in every species in the world. All that is needed is time and lots of random changes in the DNA code, and soon myriads of outstanding life forms will emerge.
Evolutionists also tell us that mutations will wonderfully adapt to our environmental needs.
We can very well imagine another planet with enormous long stretches of smooth lava fields in
which wheeled organisms are abundant." *Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection, p. 42.
Sagan's idea of people sprouting wheels instead of legs because they live on flat ground, is about as humorous as lava fields which are generally smooth and level.
four facts about mutations: (1) They are extremely rare. (2) They are only random in what they do. (3) They are almost never beneficial. (4) Most of the time they are harmful or fatal.
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.
Okay, but you didn't answer my questions.
Why are nearly all mutations harmful?
...
Information is knowledge that comes from an intelligent, living source?
Why is this necessary for evolution, and what kind of "knowledge" does the genome need?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
To be fair, he was an idiot long before the caps lock came to play.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
just curious, faggot. you remind me a lot of another sodomite i once met named whoknows. have you ever posted anywhere on the net under that name?
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
The bulk of mutations are in fact neutral. This is why they are not noticed by other than scientists who study genetics, leading to the casual assumption that mutations are extremely rare. However they occur quite often enough, and at a fairly constant rate, to be used as a kind of clock to work out how far back related organisms shared a common ancestor in evolutionary descent.
Most mutations that do have an obvious effect are harmful, that is true. We see these as birth defects, and most forms of cancer. The really serious ones are not noticed because they lead to organisms which die at such a very early stage of development that they die before they get large enough to be even clearly visible or at least noticeable.
Mutations are what allow viruses and disease-causing bacteria to adapt to the changing defences of the species they infect, and to infect new species. They are also encouraged and harnessed in our immune systems to find ways to counter-attack those organisms.
They are indeed random, and that is essential if they are going to be able to generate the few genuinely new and ultimately beneficial ones which can lead to new species. The neutral ones re-shuffle the genetic and increase the possibility of hitting upon a good/useful mutation.
So:
1. They are not as rare as many people believe, when you allow for neutral ones. The rate of mutation itself is subject to evolution, in that for each form of life there will be an optimum rate - too much mutation, and there will be too many unsuccessful offspring, too much cancer, too little, and the organism will not be able to adapt to a changing environment, including new competing species.
2. They are random, and that is why evolution works to generate genuinely new species, not just ones that are limited to the established pattern of a particular 'species'. This randomness is how new information is generated, it is the ultimate source of true creativity, of ideas and patterns not simply related to the old ones. It is what allows 'macro' evolution. This is why 'genetic algorithms' are used in computer analysis to find novel solutions to tricky problems.
3. The beneficial ones are rare in original occurrence, but since they survive and thrive, they are far more common in surviving species than the harmful ones.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
i accept your life as an
Submitted by iwbiek on April 15, 2010 - 3:59am.i accept your life as an example of SODOMY!--------->pittiful chump retreat into school yard whinning
YOU FUCKING QUEER HOMO PIECE OF SHIT! the LORD your GOD has COMMANDED you to stop your filthy UNGODLY WAYS!!!!----->lord god is a referrence to your false ELOHIM not my ELOAH YA AM again you fail as a chump with chimp envy
EVERYONE LISTEN!!!!!! ------------->yes pay attenttion to the rant of a fellow atheist bitchnugget who fails to meet my challenge in true crybaby form
i know MIND OVER MATTER from theologyweb forums! he is a FRAUD. he is a WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING, a TARE AMONG THE WHEAT!!!----------> lol actually atheism is a wolf in sheeps clothing based in humanism founded in ancient pagan religions that worship creation in stupidity
i have several FIRST-HAND ACCOUNTS that MIND OVER MATTER is a FLAMING FAGGOT OF THE FIRST ORDER!!! he DISGUSTS me and all GODLY people, pretending to share the righteous wrath of GOD against the WICKED. -------------->perhaps you have seen the name mind over matter elsewhere ? so what ?
you atheists clones are a dime a dozen whinning and always targeting the one truth that undermines your slapnut mentality!!!
he is most definitely NOT A CHRISTIAN! "not everyone who says to me 'lord, lord' shall be saved but only he who DOES THE WILL OF MY FATHER who is in heaven"!-----------------> I never refer to "lord this or that" lord is a refference to satan, and you who knows nothing about history are making a fool of yourself complaing about the morals of a higher power to me when you are the queer wannabe.
his life is a disgusting pit of DEPRAVITY! he watches GAY PORNOGRAPHY! and LIKES IT!----------->>so sad too bad you are without excuse in your futility. trying in vain is not doing again what you failed to accomplish with your scumbag mentality.
you are useless to your cause
I accept your failure as a sign of defeat
please keep your pesos send them to haiti where they still practice voodoo
look with love from above
the desire to live is the desire to live forever
you did not evolve never did and never will
True science is always provable, theoretical science never is.