[_ Old Earth _] Debunking Evolution:

[Lewis]

Debunking Evolution:
problems, errors, and lies exposed,
in plain language for non-scientists
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

 

[jasoncran]

i will read that later, no need i'm on a forum that has that as its sole purpose

 

[Asyncritus]

Debunking Evolution:
problems, errors, and lies exposed,
in plain language for non-scientists
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Thanks for the link, Lewis.

Hey Barbarian and lordkalvan: you might like to have a look at it. But take along your sunshades - the light is frightening to an evolutionist!

 

[Barbarian]

New tactic? Don't post it, but declare how scary it is?

Find the scariest parts and post them here, and we'll have a look. Or I can find the funniest parts and put them up for amusement. Which would you rather have here? A quick look shows five or six woofers that would make almost everyone chuckle.

Let us know which way you'd like to do it.

 

[Classik]

I see. Let's wait for their defence :D

 

[Asyncritus]

New tactic? Don't post it, but declare how scary it is?

Find the scariest parts and post them here, and we'll have a look. Or I can find the funniest parts and put them up for amusement. Which would you rather have here? A quick look shows five or six woofers that would make almost everyone chuckle.

Let us know which way you'd like to do it.

Your choice.

 

[Barbarian]

Pick the one you think is scariest, and we'll see what can be done with it.

 

[Lewis]

Evolutionist have not a clue, I find them to be very sad a pathetic in their views.

 

[Barbarian]

Evolutionist have not a clue, I find them to be very sad a pathetic in their views.

Well, let's see what he can bring to the table, um?

 

[Roof]

Well, let's see what he can bring to the table, um?

I dont know if it is the scariest but I dont have allot of time to go through the entire article at the moment and this one seemed interesting to me.




To make any lasting change, a beneficial mutation would have to spread ("sweep") through a population and stay (become "fixed"). To evolutionists, this idea has been essential for so long that it is called a "classic sweep", "in which a new, strongly beneficial mutation increases in frequency to fixation in the population." Some evolutionist researchers went looking for classic sweeps in humans, and reported their findings in the journal Science. "To evaluate the importance of classic sweeps in shaping human diversity, we analyzed resequencing data for 179 human genomes from four populations". "In humans, the effects of sweeps are expected to persist for approximately 10,000 generations or about 250,000 years." Evolutionists had identified "more than 2000 genes as potential targets of positive selection in the human genome", and they expected that "diversity patterns in about 10% of the human genome have been affected by linkage to recent sweeps." So what did they find? "In contrast to expectation," their test detected nothing, but they could not quite bring themselves to say it. They said there was a "paucity of classic sweeps revealed by our findings". Sweeps "were too infrequent within the past 250,000 years to have had discernible effects on genomic diversity." "Classic sweeps were not a dominant mode of human adaptation over the past 250,000 years."

--Hernandez, Ryan D., Joanna L. Kelley, Eyal Elyashiv, S. Cord Melton, Adam Auton, Gilean McVean, 1000 Genomes Project, Guy Sella, Molly Przeworski. 18 February 2011. Classic Selective Sweeps Were Rare in Recent Human Evolution. Science, Vol. 331, no. 6019, pp. 920-924.

 

[Barbarian]

Neither Darwinian theory nor modern evolutionary theory requires fixation in a species. Indeed, fixation of most alleles is a large risk for extinction; loss of genetic variability (such as we see in cheetahs) usually results in extinction. Fixation seems to be pretty much a function of bottlenecks by geographic isolation or a loss in numbers. The lucky ones survive, and a new species usually results. Most don't survive.

The genetic evidence indicates the last time that happened in our lineage coincided with the evolution of H. sapiens. Which is consistent with the other evidence.

Not so scary, if you know what the theory is about.

 

[Asyncritus]

Pick the one you think is scariest, and we'll see what can be done with it.

You did ask.

Repairing mutations
So duplicate genes are not macroevolution's secret laboratory. Furthermore, everyone agrees that harmful mutations appear many, many times more often than mutations needed for new construction ever could.

Over those millions of years, slightly harmful mutations that are hidden, or not destructive enough for natural selection to remove, would also quietly accumulate. This would produce creatures loaded up with highly polluted genes.

Survival of the barely functional? We do not find this either because cells have mechanisms that maintain the original design of a creature within its variation boundaries, and minimize the accumulation of mutations. These include:

• A proofreading system that catches almost all errors
• A mismatch repair system to back up the proofreading system
• Photoreactivation (light repair)
• Removal of methyl or ethyl groups by O6 - methylguanine methyltransferase
• Base excision repair
• Nucleotide excision repair
• Double-strand DNA break repair
• Recombination repair
• Error-prone bypass36

Harmful mutations happen constantly. Without repair mechanisms, life would be very short indeed and might not even get started because mutations often lead to disease, deformity, or death.

So even the earliest, "simple" creatures in the evolutionist's primeval soup or tree of life would have needed a sophisticated repair system.

But the mechanisms not only remove harmful mutations from DNA, they would also remove mutations that evolutionists believe build new parts.

The evolutionist is stuck with imagining the evolution of mechanisms that prevent evolution, all the way back to the very origin of life.

Heh heh heh!

 

[Barbarian]

Repairing mutations
So duplicate genes are not macroevolution's secret laboratory.

Turns out, they are:
Genetics February 1, 2005 vol. 169 no. 2 1157-1164
Rapid Subfunctionalization Accompanied by Prolonged and Substantial Neofunctionalization in Duplicate Gene Evolution
Xionglei He and Jianzhi Zhang
Gene duplication is the primary source of new genes. Duplicate genes that are stably preserved in genomes usually have divergent functions. The general rules governing the functional divergence, however, are not well understood and are controversial. The neofunctionalization (NF) hypothesis asserts that after duplication one daughter gene retains the ancestral function while the other acquires new functions. In contrast, the subfunctionalization (SF) hypothesis argues that duplicate genes experience degenerate mutations that reduce their joint levels and patterns of activity to that of the single ancestral gene. We here show that neither NF nor SF alone adequately explains the genome-wide patterns of yeast protein interaction and human gene expression for duplicate genes. Instead, our analysis reveals rapid SF, accompanied by prolonged and substantial NF in a large proportion of duplicate genes, suggesting a new model termed subneofunctionalization (SNF). Our results demonstrate that enormous numbers of new functions have originated via gene duplication.


----


Nature Genetics 36, 577 - 579 (2004)
Duplicate genes increase gene expression diversity within and between species
Zhenglong Gu1, 4, Scott A Rifkin2, 3, Kevin P White3 & Wen-Hsiung L
Using microarray gene expression data from several Drosophila species and strains, we show that duplicated genes, compared with single-copy genes, significantly increase gene expression diversity during development. We show further that duplicate genes tend to cause expression divergences between Drosophila species (or strains) to evolve faster than do single-copy genes. This conclusion is also supported by data from different yeast strains.

Furthermore, everyone agrees that harmful mutations appear many, many times more often than mutations needed for new construction ever could.

Yep. If it weren't for natural selection, which preserves the good ones and removes the bad ones, there wouldn't be the diversity of life we see.

Over those millions of years, slightly harmful mutations that are hidden, or not destructive enough for natural selection to remove, would also quietly accumulate. This would produce creatures loaded up with highly polluted genes.

Indeed. This is why you shouldn't marry your cousin. We have many, many defective recessives; everyone has them. No problem, unless you marry a close relative.

Harmful mutations happen constantly. Without repair mechanisms, life would be very short indeed and might not even get started because mutations often lead to disease, deformity, or death.

So even the earliest, "simple" creatures in the evolutionist's primeval soup or tree of life would have needed a sophisticated repair system.

Or a much less finicky genome. One of those. The evidence suggests the latter.

But the mechanisms not only remove harmful mutations from DNA, they would also remove mutations that evolutionists believe build new parts.

Still does. What's remarkable is that the population geneticists have shown that the net error rate is just about the optimal for stability with some innovation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate

The evolutionist is stuck with imagining the evolution of mechanisms that prevent evolution, all the way back to the very origin of life.

Surprise.

 

[jasoncran]

i wish this site banned wikipedia for science dissuccions here.


and i am curious at what point do you seperate yourself from science? when athiestic secular science deals with the origins they can answer this question you will face in any science class

what did it all come from? and who? we can logically say in honestly the universe always existed and that law just sponteneously arrived and we have order just because we have order.

barb, explain to me why pe wasnt accepted at first and how convergent evolution is being pushed the days.

 

[jasoncran]

and science has to answer empiracally how life came to be on earth. and also the origins of the big bang. or the very first multiverse or whatever started it.

that will get weird.

 

[Barbarian]

and i am curious at what point do you seperate yourself from science?

Don't have to. God is not at odds with His creation. We are.

when athiestic secular science deals with the origins

Never saw atheistic secular science. There's no such thing, any more than there can be atheistic secular plumbing.

they can answer this question you will face in any science class

what did it all come from? and who?

That's easy. "Science can't answer questions like that. It's limited to the physical universe."

barb, explain to me why pe wasnt accepted at first

It was. Huxley, for example, was a saltationist. But it wasn't the majority view, until we accumulated enough evidence to make it a solid theory. And that was a long time coming. The history of Punk Eek is kinda interesting. Want to hear about it?

and how convergent evolution is being pushed the days.

Darwin talked about it, so it's got a long history, too.

 

[Lewis]

You know, I now laugh at Evolutionist because they have not a clue. I used to get upset with them for years now, I just shake my head or laugh at them. But what I still get mad at and I will get in their world about. Is when they teach this garbage, and I mean it is garbage to our children.

 

[Asyncritus]

Hi B

WE're looking at some serious stuff here.

If the original cell/s had all this repair mechanism built in (note the word 'built', which implies an intelligent builder since the product is supremely intelligent), then any mutation which did not immediately produce a successful, non-repair-needing genetic alteration, would be weeded out by the self-same mechanisms.

Therefore, gradual, step by step mutations could not survive, but be deleted.

Therefore, the only ones that could survive, are the ones that produced new functional characteristics in a ZAP sort of way, if you see what I mean.

It's the old Law of Asynctropy again. It either arrived in one evolutionary go, or it didn't arrive at all. But that's not how evolution works, or is supposed to work.

Time you dropped the idea, methinks.

 

[jasoncran]

Don't have to. God is not at odds with His creation. We are.



Never saw atheistic secular science. There's no such thing, any more than there can be atheistic secular plumbing.





That's easy. "Science can't answer questions like that. It's limited to the physical universe."



It was. Huxley, for example, was a saltationist. But it wasn't the majority view, until we accumulated enough evidence to make it a solid theory. And that was a long time coming. The history of Punk Eek is kinda interesting. Want to hear about it?



Darwin talked about it, so it's got a long history, too.

yeah right. no its not. i wasnt taught that in school on convergent evolution. how could something a common ancestor from the single cell or another gene that is related that has say the code for the brain and one organism who has similar capilities has another gene for that?

so we shouldnt study orgins eh barb then of how the universe came to be with the said laws too? how then or why must we assume then that by proxy theres no creator then? as he cant tested but yet make the assumption that somehow the universe came to be with nothing to order it.

makes no sense. it just well it has order and we dont care to ask that why? how convienent. so no mention of the god and who did it just ignore the ordered universe and presume he didnt and doesnt exist.


that is why origins of life studies are a complete waste of time. if you are dying barb the doctor doesnt need to know a dime on evolution to save your but now does he? he doesnt consult darwin at all. just need to know what has been observed and act on that.

and uh its by faith that you assumed the god did use evolution,

science begs the questions on these origins studies by yet refuses to answer the issue.

logic dictates if something has order it must have someone or a group that ordered it!so if science assumes nothing ordered it then how can that be a statemement of reality!

simples its not!

 

[Classik]

yeah right. no its not. i wasnt taught that in school on convergent evolution. how could something a common ancestor from the single cell or another gene that is related that has say the code for the brain and one organism who has similar capilities has another gene for that?

so we shouldnt study orgins eh barb then of how the universe came to be with the said laws too? how then or why must we assume then that by proxy theres no creator then? as he cant tested but yet make the assumption that somehow the universe came to be with nothing to order it.

makes no sense. it just well it has order and we dont care to ask that why? how convienent. so no mention of the god and who did it just ignore the ordered universe and presume he didnt and doesnt exist.


that is why origins of life studies are a complete waste of time. if you are dying barb the doctor doesnt need to know a dime on evolution to save your but now does he? he doesnt consult darwin at all. just need to know what has been observed and act on that.

and uh its by faith that you assumed the god did use evolution,

science begs the questions on these origins studies by yet refuses to answer the issue.

logic dictates if something has order it must have someone or a group that ordered it!so if science assumes nothing ordered it then how can that be a statemement of reality!

simples its not!

I O U a golden sword