Re: Why the theory of evolution is ontologically impossible
- From: "Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2006 21:42:23 GMT
<romain.angeles@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1141764122.811820.216110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The limits of the theory of evolution
The theory of evolution is "the process by which populations of
organisms acquire and pass on novel traits from generation to
generation" and, more broadly whose "action over large stretches of
time explains the origin of new species" (wikipedia.org).
The first aspect of the theory can be easily understood and accepted.
So can the second.
Individuals within a species all share the same specific nature but
express that nature in various ways, i.e. through different
morphological expressions of specific traits. The relationship from the
individual to its species is like that of the phrase "hello" to the
general concept of salutation. What the theory of evolution states is
that the environment in which a population is living will affect the
promotion over time of particular expressions of specific morphological
traits.
Actually, what is says is that the enviroment will affect the frequency of
genetic traits in a population, by the action of natural selection.
However, it does not mean that the environment can generate new
morphological traits in that species: it only states that it will
promote or neglect the occurrence of particular expressions of
morphological traits.
The enviroment does not produce the traits, and no one claims it does.
What produces new traits in random mutation occuring in the genetic make up
of the individuals. The enviroment essentally culls out those individuals
who's traits do not offer an advantage to reproduction.
A change of species would mean a change not in
the expression of those specific morphological traits, but a change in
the nature of morphological traits.
Actually, it's a change in the frequency of expression of those traits over
time. The "change in nature of" the traits is due to mutations.
Thus the morphological traits of
the species are not determined by its environment!
What the enviroment determines is what traits are kept in the population.
Mutation is the source of new traits.
Rather the
expression of that morphology will vary in different environments.
which causes reproductive isolation, and eventually speciation.
It
is a simple biological notion that higher forms of life can influence
lower forms and not the other way around.
In biology the notion of "higher" or "lower" forms of life is meaningless.
All existing species are on the same level.
Those who believe otherwise
are the ones who will ask their dog what to wear before going out, or
those who will blindly follow their horoscope to guide their lives.
Perhaps you should read the book "Parasite Rex".
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookSearch/isbnInquiry.asp?r=1&isbn=074320011X&popup=0
Let's examine the second part of the theory of evolution: the
creation of new species, from lower species.
Again, you are going astray, by talking about "higher" and "lower" forms.
All living forms of life are equally on the branch tips of the tree of life.
A species is defined as a "group of actually or potentially
interbreeding natural populations".
for sexually reproducing organisms, that is.
Two individuals of the opposite
sex who cannot interbreed are not of the same species.
Not necessarily. There are physical and behavioural barriers to
interbreeding as well.
How could the theory of evolution be true from the standpoint of the
creation of new species?
Why wouldn't it be? Do you know how new species form?
There are two possibilities. The first one shall be called the
"spontaneous generation possibility" and the second, the
"progressive generation possibility".
I begin to smell straw......
Let's start with the first one: the "spontaneous generation
possibility". It would say that a new species is created directly as
a result of the reproduction of two individuals of the opposite sex
inside a particular species in a given time.
It normally takes more than simply two indviduals of a population to produce
a viable breeding population.
In other words, the
offspring will be from a different species than its parents'. Having
this phenomenon occur with different parents in the same population
over short periods of time will asssure the possibility of
interbreeding of that new species and its survival. The theory would
say that if that new species is well adapted to the environment, then
it will survive. Because they are two different species, they cannot
interbreed and three scenarios are possible: first, the new species
could wipe out the older species by attacking them or eating them, or,
by monopolising the sources of food and thus indirectly leading to the
extinction of the older species, or, even a third option would simply
be that the new species has different sources of food and does not
threaten the survival of the older one.
In some cases of speciation, the new species prefers a new food source, or a
new niche, which does not place them in competition with the parent
population. For more infomation on speciation see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympatric_speciation
If we consider the first two
options, and we accept the notion that all higher forms of life descend
from the evolution of lower forms of life, we should only see around us
the higher forms, because the lower ones would have been wiped out by
the higher ones.
Again, forget the 'higher' and 'lower' forms of life. All living species
are the survivors.
Obviously, this is not the case, and we have to turn
to our third option: both species survived. But this leads to a strange
question: why would nature have created a new species out of another
one, so that they don't ressemble each other in the simplest way,
i.e. in their nutrition needs?
Mainly, as you stated above, if they use the same food source, they end up
competing against each other. New species occur when a population becomes
genetically isolated from the parent population. There are many reasons a
population might become isolated, not all of them involve sharing food
resources.
What essence do the two species share,
since the second comes from the first, so that they are different in
their survival needs?
What they share is the vast majority of their genetic make up. In the
example of the Galapagos finches, the difference between species is the size
and shape of the bill, allowing one population to eat a different type of
seed.
An explanation to that question would lead to a
new theory in biology that would state that any species, through
environmental factors, can generate a new species, that has nothing in
common intrinsically with the other.
That goes against everything we know about genetics.
This sounds a bit dogmatic to
accept!
Not to mention completely ad odds with genetics. All species have
something in common with other species. The degree of commonality is
related to how long ago they split from the ancestrial population.
Let's not forget that we have gone in a hypothetical
direction and we should come back to our starting point and take the
second possibility and compare its outcome with the first.
I think you got lost somewhere on the journey.
The second way to go would be the "progressive generation
possibility". That possibility would state that the change from one
species to another is not punctual but is a very long and progressive
phenomenon.
That's what most evidence indicates. Even Punctiuated Equilibrium
supporters state that populations become separate through incremental
changes.
Before going anywhere, we should keep in mind the
difference between the expression of morphological traits of a species,
and the essence of that species.
What is the "essence" of that species? Species don't have an "essence",
they are just a varied population that can interbreed.
Those are two very different concepts
because a change in the expression of morphological traits in a species
does not mean a change of species. A change of species would mean a
change not in the expression of those specific morphological traits,
but a change in the nature of morphological traits.
No, there is no change in the 'nature' of the traits, between say a wolf and
a fox. They have different traits that have accumulated in their
population.
"Hello" and
"good morning" are two different expressions of the same concept,
namely a salutation. If we say "good evening" we change our
expression of the concept of salutation, but we do not change its
nature. This is the same for the expression of morphology and the
nature of the morphology of a given species.
Sorry, but linguistics and morphology are very different concepts. The
analogy doesn't hold.
The nature of the
morphology is specific to a given species, but its expression, although
limited to that population, is extremely diversified. What all the
individuals of a species have in common is what we call the nature of
the species or its identity.
What they have is the ability to interbreed. Without it, they are a
different species.
The first part of the theory of evolution states that environmental
factors will affect the way a species will express its identity in its
individuals.
No, what is says is that enviromental factors will determine what
individuals survive to reproduce. Those individuals who have traits which
are favored by the enviroment tend to reproduce better than those who don't.
However, as we have explained, this is not the same as a
change of species, and it does not provide a potential explanation for
our "progressive generation possibility". The nature of the
explanation has to be different, therefore embedded not in a change of
expression but in a change of nature.
That doesn't explain why there are certian species which are practically
identical, in morphology, but do not interbreed.
Let's accept for a while (not
for long!) that environmental factors can change the nature of a
species.
Again, you are mistaken about what's the effect of enviromental factors.
We have two roads to take: the first one would state that this
change can occur during the lifetime of an individual and the second
would state that the change occurs during the act of reproduction.
We know that changes over the life of the individual do not pass on to the
next generation. Any changes that are inheritiable, must be changes in the
genetic make up, which are passed on by reproduction. In other words,
indviduals don't evolve, populations do.
The
first one would sound like a total contradiction of natural processes,
that environmental factors can litterally shift an individual from
species to species. To what extent should that occur? Since the world
is in constant motion and change, how could any form of life be stable?
This sounds like a very unprobable scenario, and dogmatic again.
That was essentally the view of Lamarck. No modern biologist accepts that.
The
other road to take would tell us that the change of species occurs
gradually during successive reproductive acts of the different
generations.
That's what Darwin discovered. Darwin understood the mechanism as being
variation and natural selection. He wasn't aware of genetics.
Thus the second generation would have a different specific
nature than the first one, the third generation would change a bit more
and so on, until the new species has matured.
"matured" is not quite correct. There is no set "maturity" of a population
or species.
Let's call these
intermediate species, "transitory species".
Again, let's not get too caught up in "transitional", as all species are
either transitional, or extinct.
This leads us to a
paradox: if we follow that route, we have to assume that the second
generation, having started to change its specific nature, is not
totally compatible sexually with the first generation since they are
not exactly identical as a species.
If they can interbreed, they are the same species.
However, they are not totally
different!
Right. There has to be a great deal of variation before a population
becomes unfertile with it's parent population. Even such widely separate
species as camels and llamas can still produce offspring, although they are
usually sterile. Look up the concept of "Ring Species".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
This will lead us to say that one generation and its next
generation don't have the same nature, but don't have different
nature either! If we follow our definition of species, we are led to
think that because they are neither totally different, nor totally
identical in nature, they neither have a 100% chance of interbreeding,
In nature one can either interbreed, or not. There is no percentages of
interbreeding ability.
neither a 0% chance of interbreeding. To satisfy the hypothesis we aresnipping graphic
in, we have to state that the chance of interbreeding of the transitory
species is between 0% and 100% so that gradually, from the first
generation to the last, we go from a 100% chance of interbreeding, to
an impossible interbreeding. Let's look at a hypothetical table of
chance of interbreeding between the original species' generation,
through the transitory species' generation all the way to the new
species.
This sounds like the problem of squaring the circle: how can we, from a
continual augmentation of sides in a polygon (species 1), transform it
into a circle (species 2). The answer is that is impossible: we can
never transform a polygon into a circle by any means, because they are
of two different nature. That biological principle of going from one
simple nature of species to another more complex also seems impossible.
What measure of "complexity" are you using here? Most daughter species are
not more complex than their parent population.
We cannot go from the simpler to the more complex, only from the more
complex, can we go to the simpler.
You are misunderstanding how genetics works.
Further proofs of the impossibility of the theory of the creation of a
new species through progressive generation follow. Firstly, because the
evolutionists claim that it is a very slow process, taking even
millions of years to complete itself, all of the transitory species
would have left thousands of traces of their existence,
We do have "thousands of traces" of their existance, mostly through the
genetic record. Fossils, while less abundant, still show transitionals.
and not enough
proof of the existence of transitory species were found.
What makes you think "not enough proof" has been found? What do you
consider "enough proof"?
Secondly, one
could argue that new species can be created such as mules or ligres.
Mules and Ligers are not new species. They are hybrids, usually sterile.
That argument doesn't stand long, because all the males of these
species are sterile and they simply can't assume the procreation and
long term survival of their species.
Hybrids do occasional breed true, however that's not how speciation normally
occurs anyway.
It's funny to see that when we
were the closest to thinking that the natural creation of species is
actually real, it is then that nature told us: "sorry, this is an
exception"! So much for the evolutionists.
Your assumptions are incorrect. There is no barrier to speciation.
What scientific experiment can I do to prove the validity of the theory
of evolution?
Stop looking in your academic books, there are none.
Really? What "academic books" have you looked at?
If you find any,
it's not a scientific experiment, but merely a supposition of how
things work: "species Y looks like species X, but species Y is more
complex, therefore X has evolved in Y"!!! How dumb is that reasoning?
Not nearly as dumb as using the above strawman.
You believe it because someone told you to, not because you discovered
it for yourself, am I wrong?
Yes, very wrong.
Why would you believe in something that
you cannot even prove to yourself?
Science isn't about "believing", it's about showing the evidence.
Have you thought about all the money
research that goes in university researchers that still want to prove
it?
Yes, and it's not nearly enough to compensate for the scientific work that's
been done.
(That in itself should be a clear enough clue that it has not been
proven!
Science doesn't "prove" theories.
How would all the scientific research be centered on
experiments that still try to prove that the theory is true?
Theories are never considered to be "proven".
Simple
answer: It has not been proven!!!) Have you thought about all this
waste of time and money on a simple belief that will most probably
never be proven? Why not invest it in ways to cure disease?
Because biological research is finding ways to cure diseases.
Why not
develop technologies that will improve our conditions of life, instead
of simply satisfying ourselves with irrelevant research?
Evolutionary science is improving our conditions of life. It's not
irrelvant.
I know what the evolutionnists will say next: if you say that the
theory of evolution is wrong, what do you suggest?
No, I'm saying your assertion that the theory of evolution is wrong, is
itself wrong.
My answer is the following: I don't have to give you the truth in order
to prove to you that something is wrong. And the fact that you ask such
a question clearly shows why you believe in that theory: "Because it is
the only one that seems plausible to ME"!!!! Is that your definition of
truth???????
No. Who said it was?
Get out of this nonsense, stop believing in things that you cannot
prove, and put your faith in science, and the act of discovery. Can you
truly say that the earth is moving around the sun?
Yes.
Have you made the
discovery yoursefl,
I've made the observations myself, and they appear to be accurate.
or are you simply repeating things you've heard?
The last question to ask yourself would be: "what consequences does
that belief have upon my life, and the life of others?"
I helps better understand how life works. What else do we need?
DJT
.
- References:
- Why the theory of evolution is ontologically impossible
- From: romain . angeles
- Why the theory of evolution is ontologically impossible
- Prev by Date: Mutation
- Next by Date: Re: abiogenesis was refuted
- Previous by thread: Re: Why the theory of evolution is ontologically impossible
- Next by thread: Re: Why the theory of evolution is ontologically impossible
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
