[_ Old Earth _] Evolution Impossible To Occur

[PDoug]

Moving around genes as you see happening in sexual reproduction, cannot produce a new specie. Therefore, the only mechanism left in evolution to explain the production of new species, is mutation. Every observed mutation in nature or in labs has resulted in a creature less fit or not being affected at all by the mutation. Besides being rare, no mutation has ever been seen to result in a living creature having better or increased abilities. Therefore the probability of beneficial mutation occurring is highly remote. Even if beneficial mutation was found to take place, for mutation to give rise to a new specie through a series of steps, a whole series of mutations affecting various systems within a creature’s body would have to take place, virtually perfectly, for each step. In other words, the creature’s DNA would have to expertly rewritten for each stage of a mutation. Also, at each step, the creature would have to be fitter than its predecessor. How can a creature with say, 90% fish features, and 10% reptilian features fare in the wild? Wouldn’t the fact its eyes, transportation, muscular, and other systems which are between those of a fish and reptile, make it less capable of surviving among fish and therefore more prone to extinction? When you take into account the above, that:

1. Mutations are rare.
2. Every mutation observed in nature or in a lab has been seen either to have no substantial effect, or a detrimental effect.
3. Each step or transition a creature must undergo as it evolves from one specie to the next, has to take place with a highly sophisticated set of mutations affecting various systems (musculature, respiratory, circulatory, etc.) within the creature’s body.
4. A creature in a transitional state is less fit and hence more vulnerable to extinction then its progenitor specie.

You see that all these odds have to be surmounted many times over, as a specie evolves through a series of steps or transitions to become another specie. This is absolutely impossible! (To boot, no transitional creature can now be found in nature, and no fossils have been found attesting to transitional creatures existing in the past.)

The whole idea that the world was formed by chance with a staggeringly rich ecosystem that sustains millions and millions diverse forms of life (each one as if crafted with great expertise) is beyond belief! Any scientist that seriously ponders evolution would have to say that the chance of world being formed by this method is remote to an infinite degree! In other words, the world being formed via evolution it is utterly impossible.

(This link provides you access to the background information I used to write my message above. It is a great link.)

 

[Asimov]

Moving around genes as you see happening in sexual reproduction, cannot produce a new specie. Therefore, the only mechanism left in evolution to explain the production of new species, is mutation. Every observed mutation in nature or in labs has resulted in a creature less fit or not being affected at all by the mutation. Besides being rare, no mutation has ever been seen to result in a living creature having better or increased abilities. Therefore the probability of beneficial mutation occurring is highly remote. Even if beneficial mutation was found to take place, for mutation to give rise to a new specie through a series of steps, a whole series of mutations affecting various systems within a creature’s body would have to take place, virtually perfectly, for each step. In other words, the creature’s DNA would have to expertly rewritten for each stage of a mutation. Also, at each step, the creature would have to be fitter than its predecessor. How can a creature with say, 90% fish features, and 10% reptilian features fare in the wild? Wouldn’t the fact its eyes, transportation, muscular, and other systems which are between those of a fish and reptile, make it less capable of surviving among fish and therefore more prone to extinction? When you take into account the above, that:

Fallacy, creatures aren't born half fish, half reptile. It's a slooooow process, where populations change slowly. The DNA would not have to be expertly rewritten. Mutation is random, there is not goal for evolution, creatures aren't trying to turn from fish into reptile.

1. Mutations are rare.

Scientific source on the rate of mutation, please.

2. Every mutation observed in nature or in a lab has been seen either to have no substantial effect, or a detrimental effect.

Scientific source on this data, please.

3. Each step or transition a creature must undergo as it evolves from one specie to the next, has to take place with a highly sophisticated set of mutations affecting various systems (musculature, respiratory, circulatory, etc.) within the creature’s body.

Wrong, mutations are random, natural selection chooses the mutations that benefit the creature. Eventually, over time, the population may be a new species.

4. A creature in a transitional state is less fit and hence more vulnerable to extinction then its progenitor specie.

Wrong, the population would have to have a an equal or greater than reproductive advantage for the mutation to survive.

You see that all these odds have to be surmounted many times over, as a specie evolves through a series of steps or transitions to become another specie. This is absolutely impossible! (To boot, no transitional creature can now be found in nature, and no fossils have been found attesting to transitional creatures existing in the past.)

Maybe, if you look at it that the species was trying to turn into the fish. Transitional fossils....we are all "in transition".

The whole idea that the world was formed by chance with a staggeringly rich ecosystem that sustains millions and millions diverse forms of life (each one as if crafted with great expertise) is beyond belief! Any scientist that seriously ponders evolution would have to say that the chance of world being formed by this method is remote to an infinite degree! In other words, the world being formed via evolution it is utterly impossible.

Wait a second, I thought we were talking about biology! Planet formation has nothing to do with evolution.

(This link provides you access to the background information I used to write my message above. It is a great link.)

No, it's not.

 

[Barbarian]

Moving around genes as you see happening in sexual reproduction, cannot produce a new specie.

Actually, recombination can indeed produce a new species. If the particular combination of alleles causes reproductive isolation, that's speciation. However, in the long view, all genes with more than four alleles would have to evolve by mutation, assuming you think all "kinds" started with a single pair.

Therefore, the only mechanism left in evolution to explain the production of new species, is mutation. Every observed mutation in nature or in labs has resulted in a creature less fit or not being affected at all by the mutation.

No, that's wrong. We know of many useful mutations. We even know of some that have occured recently in humans. Would you like to learn about some of them?

Besides being rare, no mutation has ever been seen to result in a living creature having better or increased abilities.

Most of us have a few. Mutations are "rare" only in the sense that getting hit by a meteorite is rare. But the Earth gets hit by them every day. Likewise, a mutation at any particular spot on the DNA strand is highly unlikely, but the likelihood of one or more happening to your genes is very high.

Therefore the probability of beneficial mutation occurring is highly remote.

It's pretty low. That's why evolution procedes slowly. Most mutations don't do much. A few are harmful. And a very few are useful. Natural selection sorts it out.

Even if beneficial mutation was found to take place, for mutation to give rise to a new specie through a series of steps, a whole series of mutations affecting various systems within a creature’s body would have to take place, virtually perfectly, for each step.

There is no "perfectly." In fact, it doesn't even have to be an inprovement. Neutral mutations can bring about speciation.

In other words, the creature’s DNA would have to expertly rewritten for each stage of a mutation.

There are no "stages" in a mutation. It is a discrete event, with no intermediates.

Also, at each step, the creature would have to be fitter than its predecessor.

Nope. Just not less likely to die without reproducing.

How can a creature with say, 90% fish features, and 10% reptilian features fare in the wild?

Not well. Is that what you think evolutionary theory says? No wonder you don't like it. How would a 90% fish, 10% amphibian do? They do very well, thank you. They are called "lungfish."

Wouldn’t the fact its eyes, transportation, muscular, and other systems are between those of a fish and reptile, make it less capable of surviving among fish and therefore more prone to extinction?

Apparently not. They've outlived a lot of other species.

When you take into account the above, that:

1. Mutations are rare.

Wrong. We all have one or more.

2. Every mutation observed in nature or in a lab has been seen either to have no substantial effect, or a detrimental effect.

Wrong. For example, we have a recent mutation, in which bacteria evolved the ability to metabolize nylon oligomer. It gives them a huge advantage in waste ponds where nylon factories pool waste. We know precisely how it happened; it was a frameshift mutation.

3. Each step or transition a creature must undergo as it evolves from one specie to the next, has to take place with a highly sophisticated set of mutations affecting various systems (musculature, respiratory, circulatory, etc.) within the creature’s body.

Nope. For example, these bacteria have all the rest of their features the same as the regular sort.

4. A creature in a transitional state is less fit and hence more vulnerable to extinction then its progenitor specie.

Nope. For example, some weeds have recently evolved a resistance to metal ions, which allow them to grow on mine tailings. They are much more fit than ordinary weeds for such envirionments.

You see that all these odds have to be surmounted many times over, as a specie evolves through a series of steps or transitions to become another specie. This is absolutely impossible!

That seems wrong, since we have directly observed speciation.

(To boot, no transitional creature can now be found in nature, and no fossils have been found attesting to transitional creatures existing in the past.)

We can test that idea. How about I give you some intermediates and you classify them as to which group they belong?

The whole idea that the world was formed by chance with a staggeringly rich ecosystem that sustains millions and millions diverse forms of life (each one as if crafted with great expertise) is beyond belief!

Indeed. If I thought evolutionary theory said that, I wouldn't like it, either.
Most people, when they find out what evolutionary theory is actually about, don't find it so objectionable. Would you like to learn more about it?

(This link provides you access to the background information I used to write my message above. It is a great link.)

It appears that they don't know any more than you do about the subject. Let me know if you want to talk about it.

 

[Guest]

:D There is alot of information available about evolution on the
internet and from many excellent books.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... sp?ID=2670
http://www.absolutetruth.net

http://evolution-facts.org
http://www.creationscience.com/
http://lionofjudah.tribulationforces.co ... ience.html

 

[Guest]

8-) There are many other sites out there that can help you with
your research too.

 

[Asimov]

8-) There are many other sites out there that can help you with
your research too.

Yes, such as not the sites that you provided.

although blue is averse to anything with actual knowledge, talkorigins.org is a good site, infidels.org, animal diversity web, biology.com, wikipedia.org, This site is pretty good.

 

[Guest]

:wink: Are you insulting me,asimov?
http://www.tektonics.org/parody/fundyath.html

 

[Asimov]

Are you insulting me,asimov?
http://www.tektonics.org/parody/fundyath.html

Nope, I'm stating a known fact. Your continual use of refuted arguments, lies, and misrepresenting evolution certainly allude to it.

As well as your link you just provided also alludes to your inability to properly produce arguments. Fundamentalist Atheist is an oxymoron used by Christians who cannot for the life of them provide any adequate arguments.

 

[PDoug]

Moving around genes as you see happening in sexual reproduction, cannot produce a new specie. Therefore, the only mechanism left in evolution to explain the production of new species, is mutation. Every observed mutation in nature or in labs has resulted in a creature less fit or not being affected at all by the mutation. Besides being rare, no mutation has ever been seen to result in a living creature having better or increased abilities. Therefore the probability of beneficial mutation occurring is highly remote. Even if beneficial mutation was found to take place, for mutation to give rise to a new specie through a series of steps, a whole series of mutations affecting various systems within a creature’s body would have to take place, virtually perfectly, for each step. In other words, the creature’s DNA would have to expertly rewritten for each stage of a mutation. Also, at each step, the creature would have to be fitter than its predecessor. How can a creature with say, 90% fish features, and 10% reptilian features fare in the wild? Wouldn’t the fact its eyes, transportation, muscular, and other systems which are between those of a fish and reptile, make it less capable of surviving among fish and therefore more prone to extinction? When you take into account the above, that:

Fallacy, creatures aren't born half fish, half reptile. It's a slooooow process, where populations change slowly. The DNA would not have to be expertly rewritten. Mutation is random, there is not goal for evolution, creatures aren't trying to turn from fish into reptile.

Creatures cannot evolve haphazardly. You may argue that the mechanism of evolution is unintelligent and random, but when all is said and done, creatures have to evolve in an intelligent direction that results in all their internal systems being able to support their change. You cannot have a fish by chance developing lungs over the course of many generations, that does not also develop complementary muscular, reproductive, circulatory and other systems which are necessary for it to survive. The above is also true for a model in which a creature is evolved in very minute stages. If a creature is by chance evolving from a fish to a reptile in very small stages, it will still need to undergo changes throughout its internal systems for the creature to be able to reach the reptilian stage and survive. The chances of such a set of sophisticated changes affecting many internal systems taking place randomly is way beyond remote.

Another important point is that mutation does not add genetic information to a specie's DNA. Therefore mutation cannot account for the genetic information present in a reptile, describing the various systems present in the reptile, that are not present in a fish.

1. Mutations are rare.

Scientific source on the rate of mutation, please.

Please see this link, this link, and this link.

2. Every mutation observed in nature or in a lab has been seen either to have no substantial effect, or a detrimental effect.

Scientific source on this data, please.

Please see this link. I will however relax my statement a little by saying, almost every mutation observed in nature or in a lab has been seen either to have no substantial effect, or a detrimental effect. (See this link.)

 

[keebs]

You may argue that the mechanism of evolution is unintelligent and random, but when all is said and done, creatures have to evolve in an intelligent direction that results in all their internal systems being able to support their change.

Mutations are random...natural selection makes up for this.

You cannot have a fish by chance developing lungs over the course of many generations, that does not also develop complementary muscular, reproductive, circulatory and other systems which are necessary for it to survive.

And a fish wouldn't develop lungs without the other body capacities to support it because a fish such as that surely wouldn't be able to live long enough to reproduce.

If a creature is by chance evolving from a fish to a reptile in very small stages, it will still need to undergo changes throughout its internal systems for the creature to be able to reach the reptilian stage and survive. The chances of such a set of sophisticated changes affecting many internal systems taking place randomly is way beyond remote.

Once again, you are completely forgetting natural selection.

Another important point is that mutation does not add genetic information to a specie's DNA.

Yes it does. To figure this one out for yourself all you have to do is apply simple information theory to genetic code, calculate the entropy before a new mutation, calculate it afterwards, find the difference, and that is the amount of information added. You are describing a STRAWMAN theory of evolution, and until you know what you're talking about you shouldn't talk at all.

Please see this link.

Strawman.

Here...you might want to read this

 

[Guest]

Are you insulting me,asimov?
http://www.tektonics.org/parody/fundyath.html

Nope, I'm stating a known fact. Your continual use of refuted arguments, lies, and misrepresenting evolution certainly allude to it.

As well as your link you just provided also alludes to your inability to properly produce arguments. Fundamentalist Atheist is an oxymoron used by Christians who cannot for the life of them provide any adequate arguments.

:D asimov the link I gave you was in humor. The site even says
it is. It was for fun. You seem to be so angry for some reason.
If I am telling you lies,ect... please show where they are.
Some people just don't believe in evolution and the people that I show
you on the science against evolution sites are not liars.

 

[Asimov]

asimov the link I gave you was in humor. The site even says
it is. It was for fun.

So?

You seem to be so angry for some reason.

Nope.

If I am telling you lies,ect... please show where they are.
Some people just don't believe in evolution and the people that I show
you on the science against evolution sites are not liars.

Good, people shouldn't believe in evolution. They should accept it, because it is a scientific theory.

The people you link to are liars, they use misinformation, and bear false witness against science. They are either severely deluded, or lying. Everything you say about evolution is false, it is all lies.

 

[PDoug]

3. Each step or transition a creature must undergo as it evolves from one specie to the next, has to take place with a highly sophisticated set of mutations affecting various systems (musculature, respiratory, circulatory, etc.) within the creature’s body.

Wrong, mutations are random, natural selection chooses the mutations that benefit the creature. Eventually, over time, the population may be a new species.

The fact that mutations are random, and natural selections supposedly played a role in the evolution of species is incidental - if not irrelevant. When all is said an done, a creature must evolve in a sophisticated way, so that all its internal systems are adjusted to support its final outcome.

4. A creature in a transitional state is less fit and hence more vulnerable to extinction then its progenitor specie.

Wrong, the population would have to have a an equal or greater than reproductive advantage for the mutation to survive.

If a creature is more vulnerable to extinction, doesn't it also have a decreased reproductive advantage? How can a creature that is more likely to die due to decreased fitness, have an equal or greater reproductive advantage?

You see that all these odds have to be surmounted many times over, as a specie evolves through a series of steps or transitions to become another specie. This is absolutely impossible! (To boot, no transitional creature can now be found in nature, and no fossils have been found attesting to transitional creatures existing in the past.)

Maybe, if you look at it that the species was trying to turn into the fish. Transitional fossils....we are all "in transition".

What you are saying about the slow progression of one specie to another is irrelevant. All that would mean is that the steps or transitions are extremely granular: but what I said would still apply. Also the notion that nature is not trying to turn a fish into a reptile is also irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that for a creature to evolve from a fish to a reptile, the transformation of the creature has to be highly sophisticated - flawlessly affecting a range of systems within the creature's body.

The whole idea that the world was formed by chance with a staggeringly rich ecosystem that sustains millions and millions diverse forms of life (each one as if crafted with great expertise) is beyond belief! Any scientist that seriously ponders evolution would have to say that the chance of world being formed by this method is remote to an infinite degree! In other words, the world being formed via evolution it is utterly impossible.

Wait a second, I thought we were talking about biology! Planet formation has nothing to do with evolution.

Okay, so let's say we are talking about biology and its supposed evolution. Isn't the fact that the world just so happens to have a temperature range able to sustain life incredible? Isn't the fact that the world just so happens to contain vast amounts of water (vital to support life) incredible? Isn't the fact that trees just so happen help regulate carbon dioxide in the atmosphere incredible? Isn't the fact that there is such a rich, sustainable ecosystem around able to support the diverse forms of life around us incredible? All these things are relevant to evolution, because if conditions weren't right, life could not even exist in the first place - let alone progress. My point is that it evolution is problematic because you have all these odds stacked up against it.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

3. Each step or transition a creature must undergo as it evolves from one specie to the next, has to take place with a highly sophisticated set of mutations affecting various systems (musculature, respiratory, circulatory, etc.) within the creature’s body.

Wrong, mutations are random, natural selection chooses the mutations that benefit the creature. Eventually, over time, the population may be a new species.

The fact that mutations are random, and natural selections supposedly played a role in the evolution of species is incidental - if not irrelevant. When all is said an done, a creature must evolve in a sophisticated way, so that all its internal systems are adjusted to support its final outcome.

Mutation is not the method by which natural selection occurs. It doesn't have to evolve any specific way, there ius no right way to evolve, there are two paths that genetic change can have. Survival and Extinction. Those that survive, pass on their traits. Those that don't, don't. Organisms aren't so functionally delicate as you would have it either. Evolution happens and as the population that has some new trait adapts to it, it is evolving. But this happens so slowly that the changes are minute.

 

[Barbarian]

Creatures cannot evolve haphazardly.

There is surely neutral evolution, which happens in random directions. There is considerable controversy about how significant it is in overall evolutionary trends.

You cannot have a fish by chance developing lungs over the course of many generations, that does not also develop complementary muscular, reproductive, circulatory and other systems which are necessary for it to survive.

That's what natural selection does. Think about all the adaptations that had to happen for a giraffe to have a long neck. Would you like to learn about they way all those other systems changed as the neck lengthened?

The above is also true for a model in which a creature is evolved in very minute stages. If a creature is by chance evolving from a fish to a reptile in very small stages,

Reptiles did not evolve from fish.

Another important point is that mutation does not add genetic information to a specie's DNA.

Perhaps you don't know what "information" is. Information theory has helped explain why mutations work the way they do in evolution. What do you think "information" is?

Therefore mutation cannot account for the genetic information present in a reptile, describing the various systems present in the reptile, that are not present in a fish.

Since we have directly observed new information appear by mutation, your argument fails from counterexample.

I will however relax my statement a little by saying, almost every mutation observed in nature or in a lab has been seen either to have no substantial effect, or a detrimental effect.

The vast majority do little, and a few are harmful. And a very few are useful. That is all natural selection needs.

 

[Asimov]

The fact that mutations are random, and natural selections supposedly played a role in the evolution of species is incidental - if not irrelevant. When all is said an done, a creature must evolve in a sophisticated way, so that all its internal systems are adjusted to support its final outcome.

Sophisticated way? It doesn't have to evolve at all! A population evolves according to environmental pressure. Natural Selection chooses the mutations that benefit the creature. This is not incidental, if you don't accept that, ask the 99% of all species that ever lived on this earth why they are extinct.

If a creature is more vulnerable to extinction, doesn't it also have a decreased reproductive advantage? How can a creature that is more likely to die due to decreased fitness, have an equal or greater reproductive advantage?

It doesn't! That's why species become extinct, they cannot adapt fast enough to the environment. Every species that has survived environmental pressure has survived because every change they experience results in benefit.

What you are saying about the slow progression of one specie to another is irrelevant. All that would mean is that the steps or transitions are extremely granular: but what I said would still apply. Also the notion that nature is not trying to turn a fish into a reptile is also irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that for a creature to evolve from a fish to a reptile, the transformation of the creature has to be highly sophisticated - flawlessly affecting a range of systems within the creature's body.

No, it doesn't. (hypothetically - as previously stated reptiles did not evolve from fish) Not all the systems we see today in reptiles had the same use they did previously. Let's look at language, which evolves much the same way. Words change their meanings from what they originally were used for. This does not happen consciously, it happens gradually.

Look at Old English, that was basically german, yet it's considered english. Even modern english during Shakespeare's time was not the same as english used today. Would you then argue that each word had to evolve sophisticatedly in order for anyone to understand each other?? I would hope not.

Okay, so let's say we are talking about biology and its supposed evolution. Isn't the fact that the world just so happens to have a temperature range able to sustain life incredible?

No, we've found life thriving in underwater vents, and in volcanoes.

Isn't the fact that the world just so happens to contain vast amounts of water (vital to support life) incredible? Isn't the fact that trees just so happen help regulate carbon dioxide in the atmosphere incredible? Isn't the fact that there is such a rich, sustainable ecosystem around able to support the diverse forms of life around us incredible? All these things are relevant to evolution, because if conditions weren't right, life could not even exist in the first place - let alone progress. My point is that it evolution is problematic because you have all these odds stacked up against it.

This is a fallacy, doug. You assume that the earth was "made" for us, when if you look at evolution, we adapt to fit the environment of the earth. Such is the fact of evolution. Just like a puddle of water in a hole, it looks like the hole is fit perfectly for the puddle of water, because it's conformed perfectly to the water itself, but it's the other way around, the water conforms itself to fit the hole.

 

[Asimov]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

This gives a good overview on the types of mutation.

 

[PDoug]

Please give me a little while to look back over fundamental DNA biology. It's been a while.