[_ Old Earth _] Another Error Found

[Cygnus]

Barbarian observes:
Darwin's great discovery was that evolution does not happen by chance. Would you like to learn why?



I'm pretty sure that "evolutionism" is by chance. It's evolution that isn't random. Random mutation plus natural selection isn't random at all.

Here's a way to check that:

Roll two dice 100 times and write down the sum of the two dice every time. Graph the frequency of each number. That's randomness.

Then do it again and simulate natural selection by only writing down numbers less than four or greater than nine. Graph the distribution again. Why is the result not random?

Why do you who have faith in evolutionism use means of checking....that are nothing like evolutionism?

 

[Barbarian]

Why do you who have faith in evolutionism

It's your invention; if you think it's wrong, just stop talking about it.

use means of checking....that are nothing like evolutionism?

Because "evolutionism" is a strawman invented by people who don't understand anything about evolution. There's a thread started on the difference between the two. Read it and learn.

The point is that it's very obvious that populations become more fit to their environment over time, and evolutionary processes are the reason.

As you have seen, tiny changes, one at a time, are capable of producing complex structures like the eye. Indeed, those steps still exist in various organisms, so it's really pointless to deny the fact.

 

[Cygnus]

It's your invention; if you think it's wrong, just stop talking about it.



Because "evolutionism" is a strawman invented by people who don't understand anything about evolution. There's a thread started on the difference between the two. Read it and learn.

The point is that it's very obvious that populations become more fit to their environment over time, and evolutionary processes are the reason.

As you have seen, tiny changes, one at a time, are capable of producing complex structures like the eye. Indeed, those steps still exist in various organisms, so it's really pointless to deny the fact.

It's all theory you have presented. Whenever I've asked for a more detailed description...I get more unproven theory.

 

[Jim Parker]

All those tiny parts in the eye, and even in the ear --- it seems like a miracle more than evolution.

Even more so when you consider that a "beneficial mutation" is one that gives the organism an advantage in reproduction over its competitors which do not have the beneficial mutation. No single mutation step, in the thousands of necessary steps toward vision will give any advantage except the very last step when vision is achieved.
That is one point of Michael Bebe's book, Darwin's Black Box.

 

[Barbarian]

It's all theory you have presented. Whenever I've asked for a more detailed description...I get more unproven theory.

That's another one of those "evolutionism" misconceptions. "Theory" refers to ideas that have been confirmed by evidence. But you've been shown numerous favorable mutations, so it's a moot point.

I asked you to tell me one step in the evolution of complex eyes that couldn't evolve, and you declined to tell us. I showed you how the first step happens. I'll ask again. What step do you think cannot evolve?

 

[Barbarian]

No single mutation step, in the thousands of necessary steps toward vision will give any advantage except the very last step when vision is achieved.

Bacteria can respond to light with no specialized structure at all. So a dark spot does give an advantage. Let's suppose the spot is in a slight depression. This increases the acuity of the spot by making it more effective in locating the light source. And that would be a rather easy mutation.

One necessary step that gives a significant advantage.

 

[Jim Parker]

So, are you saying it's "survival of the fittest"?
The stronger ones just "took over"?

Actually, the TOE proposes that the "fittest" were able to out-reproduce their rivals resulting in the demise of the rivals.

 

[Barbarian]

It's all theory you have presented. Whenever I've asked for a more detailed description...I get more unproven theory.

I'd be pleased to show you whatever it is you want. But you seem very shy about mentioning anything specific. You asked about evolutionary theory and I gave you an entire thread on the ways evolutionary theory differs from your misunderstandings. You never responded, so I'm puzzled as to what exactly you want.

Be specific.

 

[Cygnus]

That's another one of those "evolutionism" misconceptions. "Theory" refers to ideas that have been confirmed by evidence. But you've been shown numerous favorable mutations, so it's a moot point.

I asked you to tell me one step in the evolution of complex eyes that couldn't evolve, and you declined to tell us. I showed you how the first step happens. I'll ask again. What step do you think cannot evolve?

Every step of eye evolutionism is impossible. EVERY STEP.
Secondly you never speed me how a single step happened.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Every step of eye evolutionism is impossible. EVERY STEP.
Secondly you never speed me how a single step happened.

why is it impossible for eyes to evolve?

 

[Cygnus]

I'd be pleased to show you whatever it is you want. But you seem very shy about mentioning anything specific. You asked about evolutionary theory and I gave you an entire thread on the ways evolutionary theory differs from your misunderstandings. You never responded, so I'm puzzled as to what exactly you want.

Be specific.

I've been asking for you to show us how mutations add up. You failed to answer. Game over.

 

[Cygnus]

why is it impossible for eyes to ecolve?

Because of repeated so-called beneficial mutations that are required to occur in an organism progeny's DNA responsible for the eye..

 

[Milk-Drops]

I've been asking for you to show us ow mutations add up. You failed to answer. Game over.

Cygnus you have been asked by Barabarian, Jim, and myself to start explaining yourself and be more specific. Instead you keep dishonestly claiming that we aren't showing you anything. How about you stop blaming others for what is is either your own ignorance on the subject matter or refusal to acknowledge when you have been wrong.

 

[Milk-Drops]

Because of repeated so-called beneficial mutations that are required to occur in an organism progeny's DNA responsible for the eye..

Which mutations? What structures of eyes are you specifically referring to?

 

[Cygnus]

Cygnus you have been asked by Barabarian, Jim, and myself to start explaining yourself and be more specific. Instead you keep dishonestly claiming that we aren't showing you anything. How about you stop blaming others for what is is either your own ignorance on the subject matter or refusal to acknowledge when you have been wrong.

I've ben quite clear all along....I even tied today it in many different ways but you that have faith in evolutionism always fail to answer.
In this instance you act as if a mutation that enhances the fitness of a developing eye happens all the time....ALL the while forgetting so-called beneficial mutations are random and extremely rare.....couple that with the enormous locations within the DNA where a mutation might occur....and it becomes obvious evolutionism fails.
So far all I have gotten is a coloring book version of evolutionism....that is a mutation happens, is selected and passed on.

 

[Cygnus]

Which mutations? What structures of eyes are you specifically referring to?

Any part of the so-called eye evolution.
Yeah, we had this darker pigment....that just so happened to receive mutations that made it more concave...really?

 

[Milk-Drops]

Any part of the so-called eye evolution.
Yeah, we had this darker pigment....that just so happened to receive mutations that made it more concave...really?

so you ate saying you don't accept any aspect of the evolutionary development of eyes?

 

[Cygnus]

so you ate saying you don't accept any aspect of the evolutionary development of eyes?

That would be correct considering evolutionism where it adds information to the DNA responsible if the development of the eye is impossible.
All you have is a make believe pathway.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I've ben quite clear all along....I even tied today it in many differen

No you have been very obtuse about what you mean and refuse to elaborate on your claims.

but you that have faith in evolutionism always fail to answer.

I have answered plenty, it is you who refuses to answer questions or explain yourself.

In this instance you act as if a mutation that enhances the fitness of a developing eye happens all the time....

This is exactly what Ieat when I called out your projections. I asked you what mutations you had a problem with, now you are claiming that I state beneficial eye mutations happen all the time. I did not say that at all. I'd like to know. Do you think that the strictest in rhe eye have to randomly generate during gestation? If so I would like to point out that is not what the theory of evolution states at all.

ALL the while forgetting so-called beneficial mutations are random and extremely rare.....

So dar i havent seen anyone foefet that at all.

couple that with the enormous locations within the DNA where a mutation might occur....and it becomes obvious evolutionism fails.

Is it possible that you might not know what the theory n of evolution is actually anout?

So far all I have gotten is a coloring book version of evolutionism....that is a mutation happens, is selected and passed on.

Maybe it's because your arguments suggest that you don't have a handle on advanced population mechanics and genetics which is why you make these percentage arguments and arguments of irreducible complexity?

 

[Milk-Drops]

That would be correct

Ok, are your familar with the various types of eyes and light sesnitive cells that are in the animal kingdom?

considering evolutionism where it adds information to the DNA responsible if the development of the eye is impossible.

You keep say "evolutionism adds". Do you think evolutionism is an itelligent entity? Or do you think it's a process of gene duplication, sequencing errors, and or deletion of whole or parts of genes?

All you have is a make believe pathway.

Nah, I have several decades if not centuries of studies on genetics, morphology, and taxonomy/phylogeny. You so far have just stated your ignorance on the matter.