Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

@cameronleon,

Hmmm. You seem to want to deny anything about all atavistic traits.Just because some trait has disappeared from a phenotype doesnt mean its disappeared from the genome. many of these type of traits have simple means to reappear.

Re-emergence of recessive traits as an environment changes. (Think about the peppered moth-)

time for breakfass

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Hmmm. You seem to want to deny anything about all atavistic traits.Just because some trait has disappeared from a phenotype doesnt mean its disappeared from the genome. many of these type of traits have simple means to reappear.

Re-emergence of recessive traits as an environment changes. (Think about the peppered moth-)

Hope you enjoyed your breakfast.

Mine was leftovers of broiler chicken with fried yucca, white rice, with spicy hot sauce and a Zero calories white can of Monster.

Your reference of the peppered moth is an evolutionary fade which appeared in the 70's (I think).

If you pay attention to the claims, a kind of industrial melanism, which was caused by pollution. Even buildings and tress were darkened, and the assumption was that the peppered moth were light grey color and after decades of exposure to pollution the new generations came out with a darker color.

Later, when pollution was controlled, several of the peppered moth came back to light color.

What a deep investigation found out, is that these moths were always in existence, the light grey color ones with the dark grey color ones.

The amount in population of the dark grey color peppered moth was much lesser, but they always have coexisted.

You must review Bishop and Cook, where the explanation goes a little further and against the evolutionary claims, because by some reason, there is not even a camouflage event or nature proposal, but just a mere illusion created by the combination of tree surface and moths.

It was found, a simple illusion where in light color trees moths appear darker, and where there were dark color trees moths appeared light color.

This conclusion (Bishop and Cook) emphasizes one more time that the theory of evolution is not even an illusion but a complete delusion.

1 Reply

@cameronleon,

Quote:

Your reference of the peppered moth is an evolutionary fade which appeared in the 70's (I think)

See, Thats how ativistic traits appear over and over. Its not a "RE--CREATION" of new traits, its the "Statistical sorting " by the natural environment of the traits that already exist. The population of peppered moths, even today, follows a statistical distribution of melano cratic v leuko cratic moths. The birdees just feed on the ones they can see better.Today, the white phase is again dominant( mostlydue to air pollution regs)

Had it been a mutation, Dollo's Law would rwally apply.

Whether you want to call something a "fade or not", industrial melanism still a demonstrablefact.

Many Atavistic traits are mostly those that'd be considered to be adaptive response to environmental conditions. While not an actual display of micro evolution, they do display the visible means of natural selection. Statistical increases of other atavistic traits could also be accomplished by selection FOR what would have been a recessive trait (like people with tails interbreeding as an experiment in genetic drift)

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

See, Thats how ativistic traits appear over and over. Its not a "RE--CREATION" of new traits, its the "Statistical sorting " by the natural environment of the traits that already exist. The population of peppered moths, even today, follows a statistical distribution of melano cratic v leuko cratic moths. The birdees just feed on the ones they can see better.Today, the white phase is again dominant( mostlydue to air pollution regs)

Had it been a mutation, Dollo's Law would rwally apply.

Whether you want to call something a "fade or not", industrial melanism still a demonstrablefact.

Many Atavistic traits are mostly those that'd be considered to be adaptive response to environmental conditions. While not an actual display of micro evolution, they do display the visible means of natural selection. Statistical increases of other atavistic traits could also be accomplished by selection FOR what would have been a recessive trait (like people with tails interbreeding as an experiment in genetic drift)

Now you are going out of the topic in discussion.

No moths got darker color and later got lighter color.

Both, lighter and darker color moth coexisted since unknown times.

Then, the Blickers's imaginary event of humans "losing fur, losong hair, acquiring again the lost hair, having thin hair in hotter environment, and etc.", an idea which you suggested can be back up with the peppered moth, which is a fade as well because it was found that no peppered moth went dark to come back to lighter color years later.

A fade of the 70's, a fade that evolutionists spread out as one of their evidence.

A research in those years proved that the claims of evolutionists was false, a common delusion of them, a natural mutation in their theory.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

What's so beautiful about evolution through natural selection is it's utter simplicity, epitomized so well by the peppered moth example.

2 Replies

@coluber2001,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

2 Replies

@coluber2001,

yeh. Somehow Quahog has the same set of books that Gungasnake was reading and believing. Im on vacation so I dont GAF what the guy belivs. I dont think hes out there messing up the scientific literature with his "beliefs".
Id seen a full collection of peppered moths at the Museum in Kings College. Its amazing tht the color variability of the individual moths is striking. Dull greys, white with spot, white with very few dots, very dark, all the way to black brown. Selection by predators merely sorts the population into how it makes its way in the existing environment.
The topic about hairiness among H sapiens as an atavistic trait "selected " by climate is not as big a stretch as Quahog wants it to be.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

thanks ci, maybe Q'hog 'l read it and unerstand what natural selection entails. Im always amazed at how the Creqtionists still try to make an argument but are standing on a crevice rim.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

The story behind Kettlewell's "experiments" gave us a neat tale of how we are all but humans , subject to to our biases and beliefs no matter how we try to seem fully objective.

Still, just like the stories of the great 1880's "dinosaur wars" between Yale Peabody Museum and the Philadelphia Academy of Science, theres alwqys good tale behind the dull news of science.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

yeh. Somehow Quahog has the same set of books that Gungasnake was reading and believing. Im on vacation so I dont GAF what the guy belivs. I dont think hes out there messing up the scientific literature with his "beliefs".
Id seen a full collection of peppered moths at the Museum in Kings College. Its amazing tht the color variability of the individual moths is striking. Dull greys, white with spot, white with very few dots, very dark, all the way to black brown. Selection by predators merely sorts the population into how it makes its way in the existing environment.
The topic about hairiness among H sapiens as an atavistic trait "selected " by climate is not as big a stretch as Quahog wants it to be.

Unfortunately for you, no evidence of fur, losing fur, replacement by hair, losing hair, recovering of hair, and similar deluded ideas were in reality the changes in humans in the past.

The idea of moths with different colors is not implying at all that the insects "lost the color and recovered it back again" and similar lunacies that evolutionists believe without evidence.

This is a case were one evolutionist tries to prove an imaginary change in one species in base of imaginary changes in another species... lol.

You know that you are wrong when you added the peppered moth as an example of changing color by a different one and later on with the recovering of the former color. This is why you added the peppered moth example.

Now, when your error has been exposed, your way of escaping is by adding the "predator preferences" with respect to peppered moths. Lol.

Look, just admit that you have made a mistake, so we can continue with other topic in this discussion. Having you with such obstinate attitude of insisting in a point lost by you is seriously degrading your level of intellect.

Be mature, just admit it... you mess it up... you should keep your mouth shut...

Evolution has no evidence but deluded arguments on its side.

Hope you are having happy vacations.

1 Reply

@cameronleon,

Quote:

You know that you are wrong when you added the peppered moth as an example of changing color by a different one and later on with the recovering of the former color

Now you are no longer speaking out of your mouth. Where did anyone say that?? When an individual is "Selected against" by predation, unless it has already bred, it certainly cant pass along its traits now can it?.
Why not Read what ci posted, you can learn some things despite your hard edge beliefs.
As I once said about Quahog , youre rarely right but youre never in doubt. You seem to believe the same things as he but without all the wackiness and the vehemence.

I

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

.... how we are all but humans , subject to to our biases and beliefs no matter how we try to seem fully objective.

So true! I see that almost every day on the topic of politics and religion. Some people have difficulty with science, because what they are taught conflicts with science. I'm not sure how some scientists in biology, anthropology, chemistry, and paleontology can believe in the bible and their field of study at the same time.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Is Quahog back?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

Now you are no longer speaking out of your mouth. Where did anyone say that?? When an individual is "Selected against" by predation, unless it has already bred, it certainly cant pass along its traits now can it?.

I'm not the one who is trying to change the channel and watch a different TV program.

The discussion a page before this one, was the zero possibilities that humans had fur, later lost it and had hair, later many lost the hair but recovered back. and so forth.

You came to the discussion and these were your words

Quote:

Hmmm. You seem to want to deny anything about all atavistic traits.Just because some trait has disappeared from a phenotype doesnt mean its disappeared from the genome. many of these type of traits have simple means to reappear.

Re-emergence of recessive traits as an environment changes. (Think about the peppered moth-)

After this thought of you based on the evolution theory, I present you a study were it was observed that such phenomenon described by you never happened but that dark color and light color peppered moth always coexisted and the real phenomenon was solely of population percent numbers.

Here is where you started mentioning predators catching moths by the color because their easy identification from the tree branch, or whatever.

The point is that such losing of hair to be recovered later on by descendants is not observed at all neither today and can't even be proven it happened in the past.

Such an idea is pure speculation based on imagination alone.

Better to say, it is a belief.

4 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

So true! I see that almost every day on the topic of politics and religion. Some people have difficulty with science, because what they are taught conflicts with science. I'm not sure how some scientists in biology, anthropology, chemistry, and paleontology can believe in the bible and their field of study at the same time.

When I was a little child I was amazed of how teenagers were capable of chewing bubble gum and smoke a cigarette at the same time....

0 Replies

@cameronleon,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1194281/Darwins-evolution-moth-changes-black-white-thanks-soot-free-skies.html

0 Replies

@cameronleon,

Quote cameronleon:

Quote:

The discussion a page before this one, was the zero possibilities that humans had fur, later lost it and had hair, later many lost the hair but recovered back. and so forth.

HAR HAR HARDEE HAR HAR
So how many posts does it take for you to get the idea that nobody ever said that genus Homo ever went through a period where they had neither fur nor hair? It's been several posts so far, yet still you see things which were never posted.

By the way, I was taught in fifth grade that humans had hair of one sort or another over almost our bodies, something that I had noticed before it was even taught. Where did you go to school?

1 Reply

@Blickers,

https://www.sciencealert.com/watch-why-do-we-have-body-hair

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Some colleagues who are rather well known in their sciences are also religious. Their interpretation of their god is one who is transcendent of "goings -on" and not day to day subject to the Bullshit of the several books of legend and mythology.

I found that, religion, after a certain age of "growing-up" , its just another comic book life of things like super heroes.

0 Replies

@cameronleon,

as I said ,when your disagreement regarding body hair began to unfold, you dont seem to know anything about atavistic traits or expressions in species. I used other examples beside reaquiring body hair. You then claim it was off topic. Perhaps if you just take a bit o time to read some Ernst Mayr or even Paul Erlich (not the "magic bullet Erlich but the evolutionary biologist). Id suggest that you take on some of Steve Gould's stuff but that requires a bit more geeky involvement than youd wanna give.
So, in order to "bring you up to speed" so we can discuss this entire evolutionary imperative in light of Dollo' Law without me getting hoarse, heres a 10 year old paper by Collins and Cipriani about one form of a single atavistic trait . The entire topic is right in line with your limited attempts at "Science denial", and it quite readable.

AN ATAVISTIC TRAIT IN LIGHT OF DOLLO"S LAW

AS I did emphaize, "whether you believe it or not, it's still a fact"

1 Reply

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know