Evolution: A Crumbling Theory

The educated lay person is not aware of how overwhelmingly evolution has been debunked over the last century.

The following is a minimal list of entire categories of evidence disproving evolution:

The decades-long experiments with fruit flies beginning in the early 1900s. Those tests were intended to demonstrate macroevolution; the failure of those tests was so unambiguous that a number of prominent scientists disavowed evolution at the time.

The discovery of the DNA/RNA info codes (information codes do not just sort of happen...)

The fact that the info code explained the failure of the fruit-fly experiments (the whole thing is driven by information and the only info there ever was in that picture was the info for a fruit fly...)

The discovery of bio-electrical machinery within 1-celled animals.

The question of irreducible complexity.

The Haldane Dilemma. That is, the gigantic spaces of time it would take to spread any genetic change through an entire herd of animals.

The increasingly massive evidence of a recent age for dinosaurs. This includes soft tissue being found in dinosaur remains, good radiocarbon dates for dinosaur remains (blind tests at the University of Georgia's dating lab), and native American petroglyphs clearly showing known dinosaur types.

The fact that the Haldane dilemma and the recent findings related to dinosaurs amount to a sort of a time sandwich (evolutionites need quadrillions of years and only have a few tens of thousands).

The dna analysis eliminating neanderthals and thus all other hominids as plausible human ancestors.

The total lack of intermediate fossils where the theory demands that the bulk of all fossils be clear intermediate types. "Punctuated Equilibria" in fact amounts to an attempt to get around both the Haldane dilemma and the lack of intermediate fossils, but has an entirely new set of overwhelming problems of its own...

The question of genetic entropy.

The obvious evidence of design in nature.

The arguments arising from pure probability and combinatoric considerations.


Here's what I mean when I use the term "combinatoric considerations"...

The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.

Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, the specialized system which allows flight feathers to pivot so as to open on upstrokes and close to trap air on downstrokes (like a venetian blind), a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.

For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.

In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.

All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.

And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.

Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.

Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.

I ask you: What could be stupider than that?

mark

A few questions.

1HOW come, no accredited college in the US offers a "cience degree" in Creationism of ID?

2Why do you keep bringing up Haldanes mistakes? He recognized that, many times, one gene is not enough to affect a new trait an often times only one NUCLEOTIDE is enough?
Haldane realized he fucked up, are you aware of that?

3We can "create" parental forms of organisms by turning off or turning on specific nucleotides or genes. Did you know that?

4 How comes the fossil record does not show this ?.

5. Every time Irreprodicible Complexity has been raised, it has been found out that there are several other steps which can accomplish the same things in even simpler life forms.

6. I just found out who Dr Gunter Viohl is and hes NOT a damned Creationist. Hes wondering out loud what the original organisms were that resulted in the evolved pterosaurs (and bats-even though theres no relationship between the two). He quipped that both bats and pterosaurs show up in the fossil record "fully formed"
AT LEAST TO THIS DATE.

Remember that, until just about a half century ago, most all organisms had no fossils of ancestral forms. Fossil hunting occurs at the pace that it does and is not subject to second guessing as to its entire validity because theres a GAP in a few records. Think about all the species in which the transitional fossils do exist?

ANYWAY, it turns out that Dr Viohl was merely "quote mined"> We;come to the dishonest fraud filled world of the Creationists .

I dare the OP to define "The Theory of Evolution" in his own words.

Gunga feels that Irreducible Complexity is valid argument. ITS NOT. The major fallacy of Irreducible Complexity (IC) is that its author (Michael Behe) assumes that biological things and ytems all started out the way they ended up and that's not the way evolution works. The biggest (and simplest) way to demonstrate that IC is bullshit is to consider ceratin body tructures of organisms from the fossil record . Body functions usually adapt and change to conduct an entirely new function from their original one. (This is called exaptation(they already had a word for it in paleontology). An example is the PANDA"s THUMB. This feature can be seen in fossils of ancestral bears to have actually been a bone spur on the ancient bears wrist. Subsequent bear varieties show the exaption of this spur to become a "thumb-like extension"
This is just one example of how adaptation of one thing in a bio system is the keystone of evolution

That's the point. I don't want to hear his argument about why evolution is wrong until I hear his definition of what the theory says. Invariably, these people are unable to give a correct definition unless they cut and paste one in its entirety.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/michael_behes_critics_make_dar044511.html

The Haldane dilemma is basically higher arithematic more so than anything you might call higher math; a sixth grader should be able to understand it.

Walter Remine’s simplistic explanation of it goes like this:

Imagine a population of 100,000 apes or “proto-humans” ten million years ago which are all genetically alike other than for two with a “beneficial mutation”. Imagine also that this population has the human or proto-human generation cycle time of roughly 20 years.

Imagine that the beneficial mutation in question is so good, that all 99,998 other die out immediately (from jealousy), and that the pair with the beneficial mutation has 100,000 kids and thus replenishes the herd.

Imagine that this process goes on like that for ten million years, which is more than anybody claims is involved in “human evolution”. The max number of such “beneficial mutations” which could thus be substituted into the herd would be ten million divided by twenty, or 500,000 point mutations which, Remine notes, is about 1/100 of one percent of the human genome, and a miniscule fraction of the 2 to 3 percent that separates us from chimpanzees, or the half of that which separates us from Neanderthals.

In a rational world, that should be as far as most people need to read. That basically says that even given a rate of evolutionary development which is fabulously beyond anything which is possible in the real world, starting from apes, in ten million years the best you could possibly hope for would be an ape with a slightly shorter tail.

The arguments begin at the point at which Remine or others begin discussing the actual max rates at which any sort of trait actually could be substituted into an entire herd of animals rather than using the simplified assumption above which favors evolution to an insane degree. That's the line of thinking which has led people to talk in terms of quadrillions of years but, as I noted, there's no need to go there.

And, even for those who for some perverted reason WANT to go there, there is this:

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/index.php/tutorials-mainmenu-48/articles/item/52-answering-evolutionist-attempts-to-dismiss-haldane-s-dilemma

more...

http://creation.com/haldanes-dilemma-has-not-been-solved

duh?

Is this synchronicity or what? see by why people deny evolution!

I came with exactly the same!




Ah well, we have to face it, evolution shite is obsolete!

The point of irreducible complexity has been debunked each time Behe hs played his "for example, heres another IC for you".
Its getting funny when now, some grad students are taking him apart by showing his enzyme models hve precursors that Behe wasn't aware of.

I haven't seen any real scientific journals in any of your "examples" gunga. How Come?

PS, you've not answered why NO ACCREDITED UNIVERSITY OR COLLEGE in the US offers a BS or grad degrees in "Creation SCience" in a science department.

I posted the "Cost of..." paper by Haldane in another thread. The summary of which is



Also, as we said before, the SNP and MNP's were only recognized in the 1980's

The OP is unable to state the Theory of Evolution, yet maintains that it's wrong.

This has been stated and demonstrated many times before. I devoted a whole thread to it. None of the people who rail against evolution understand it.

They describe a straw man stuffed with fallacies and then declare that it is impossible (which their straw men are), and challenge us to show evidence for it. And when we don't bother to waste our time with their exercise, they declare that there is no evidence for evolution.

The theory of evoloserism isn't difficult to state. The claim is that some dirt and rocks somehow or other got lucky and turned into one-celled organisms and that, thereafter, during some suitably gigantic space of time and via the agencies of mutation and natural selection, those one-celled organisms gave rise to all of the complex animals and plants which we observe today.

If that sounds stupid, it's because it IS stupid. The theory is no longer being supported by anybody with brains or talent; it draws its support from what most would term academic dead wood.

You're babbling about the origin of life. Evolution doesn't have anything to do with origins, either of the cosmos or of life. Evolution cannot take place until life is present. Duh-uh . . . .

duh???????????????????

You just proved my point. Then "Q" Made it worse for you. You're 0 for 2.

why did I make it worse???


btw this is not a contest of course.

if it was evolution would already have lost it.