Re: Solid Argument Against Evolution

On Oct 7, 7:35 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 5, 5:28 pm, Prof Weird <pol...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 5, 7:32 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/Shattering-Myths-Darwinism-Richard-Milton/dp/08...

David C. Read, reviewing Richard Milton's "Shattering The Myths Of

Darwinism" (1997), writes:

"Before reading this book, I did not understand how evolution is
supposed to have happened. I had the idea that natural selection acted
upon normal variation. Obviously, there is great variety of form
within each species. It makes sense that some individuals within a
species are better fitted to survive by virtue of being stronger,
faster, smarter or in some other way better adapted. These individuals
will survive more often, mate more often, and leave more offspring,
pushing the species in the direction of greater survivability.
Eventually the species evolves into an altogether higher form of
life.

This notion of evolution is wrong.

He 'determined' this HOW, exactly ?

It is a misconception of the
unsophisticated; scientists know that evolution does not work this
way. Many intelligent non-scientists, however, probably share this
misconception, and most evolutionists do not bother to clear up the
confusion. The dirty little secret, in fact, is that some of them
encourage it.

The evolution scenario described above is merely selective breeding,
with nature doing the selecting. We know that selective breeding can
never lead to a new species.

He 'knows' that HOW, exactly ? Wishful thinking and whining 'IS
NOT !! IS NOT !!! IS NOT !!!!' doesn't cut it.

No one has ever crossed the natural genetic barrier. This is the most
established fact in biology, Professor.

An 'established fact' with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

Fruit flies become [sterile]
and remain deformed fruit flies.

Except when they speciate in the wilds - lke the Hawaiian
Drosophiliids.
And would anyone SERIOUSLY expect them to become anything BUT fruit
flies in just a few years ?

Humans have been practicing artificial
selective breeding on plants and animals for centuries, probably
millenia, without ever having bred a new species.

And yet NEW SPECIES have arisen all on their own - cichlids in African
lakes, mosquitoes in the
subways of London, hawthorn and apple maggot flies, etc. ....

Negative. The point and fact was that conscious selection did not and
could not; therefore, of course, neither can or has unconscious.

Except for the FACT that new species have arisen all on their own -
cichlids in African lakes,
mosquitoes in the subways of London, hawthorn and apple maggot flies,
etc.

Hint : when OBSERVED REALITY contradicts your fetid bleatings,
consider the possibility that you
may actually be wrong !

Dennett in 1995 called natural selection "unconscious" ("Dangerous
Idea") while making the same unfounded assertion you have made.
Evolutionists inability to comprehend that if conscious cannot then
neither can unconscious, unless, of course, you can cite and explain
experimental data that says otherwise. Since the data of artificial
breeding has never breached species barrier the fact was stated at the
beginning by Mr. Read and not harmed by your assertion to the
contrary.

Then please explain the FACTS of observed speciation in the wild,
twit.

Lab and artificial breeding are for limited traits with small
populations; these conditions
are not usually found in the wild (many traits, larger populations),
thus less chance
of genetic bottlenecks, inbreeding, etc.

Milton recounts the evidence in Chapter 12, "Of Green Mice and Blue
Genes." Plants and animals can be selectively bred for a specific
characteristic, but that characteristic can only be pushed so far away
from the norm for that species, and no farther. One example is the
sugar beet, which, when botanists began trying to increase its sugar
content, was about 5% sugar. Selective breeding managed to push this
percentage to 17%, but there it stopped and there it remains.

So ? Variation tends to drop under strong selection.
Since when are sugarbeets divided into species based on sugar
content ?

You have misunderstood. Read gave an example of the barrier. Again,
the fact of barrier is supported.

Since when are sugarbeets divided into species based on sugar content,
Ray ?

Selective breeding depletes variation, and tends to concentrate
deleterious alleles. Given enough time
and large enough populations, those problems resolve.

The FACT that there are limits is hardly news to anyone Ray - would
the fact that it is impossible to breed a ten foot long
cockroach prove evolution is impossible ?

Another
example is afforded by the numerous experiments on fruit flies
conducted by Dobzhansky. One such experiment set out to vary the
number of bristles on the body of the fly, starting from a stock of
flies having an average of 36 bristles. By selecting for lower-than-
normal number, scientists were able to reduce the average number of
bristles to 25. After thirty generations, however, the line became
sterile and died out. The second group was selected for higher-than-
average number of bristles. Over twenty generations the average
bristle count rose from 36 to 56. Again, however, sterility became so
common that the experiment was terminated. Again and again, these
experiments showed that variability is limited. Moreover, the most
frequent response to one-sided selction is a drop in general fitness.
Ernst Mayr terms this phenomenon "genetic homeostasis." It is a
natural barrier that has been encountered by all plant and animal
breeders throughout the ages.

Bristles are part of the DROSOPHILA NERVOUS SYSTEM, twit !
Too bad for you that genetic homeostasis is NOT ABSOLUTE in all
traits, nor for all time.

Yes it is.

You 'determined' that HOW, exactly ?

Oh yes - you stomped your foot, waved your fist and screamed 'YES IT
IS !!!!!!1!1!!!'


GH is the natural uncrossable species barrier. Any homology facts
intending to infer macroevolution are falsified right here, Professor.

Then how do YOU explain the FACT that speciation has been observed -
both in the lab
AND in the natural environment ?

Hint : when OBSERVED REALITY contradicts your fetid bleatings, take
time to ponder the possibility that you
may be wrong.

Selection reduces variability; mutations restock it. Is this simple
idea just too
much for you to grasp ?

Fraud.

So I guess the answer is 'Yes - it IS too much for Ray to grasp.'

The EVIDENCE that genetic homeostasis is an absolute barrier is what
again ?

The fact that no artificial breeder has ever produced a new species.

Except when they have.

At some point a barrier is reached. Now, how does something
unintelligent and unconscious cross that which ultra-intelligent
mankind cannot behind our backs in the wild?

Because nature has more resources and time than any human researcher
ever will ?

Because your hallucination of an 'uncrossable genetic barrier' is
naught but the plaintive whinings
of a deranged buffoon ?

The EVIDENCE that it can NEVER be overriden by any mechanism is what
again ?

The fact that NS is unconscious, except when Darwinists, by hooded
proxy (sock puppet), provide the intelligence.

Selection is not random, Ray. If a mutation grants a reproductive
advantage, there will be more of
that variation in later generations. No external intelligence
required.

Thus, a new species has never evolved by breeding, that is, by the
normal recombination of genes through sexual reproduction.

But yet NEW SPECIES have arisen naturally. Thus, REALITY shows your
ideas be bunk.

Only Darwinists believe that despite the scientific data that says
otherwise, Professor. Data that Mr. Read and Mr. Milton have outlined
and published, and which I have argued briefly here, says this has not
happened.

Examination of REALITY shows they are wrong.
Artificial selection for a narrow range of traits is not something
usually seen in nature - intense selection
limits variability. But, given time, mutations restock the variation.

How many varieties of dogs are there ? Are you (or the drooler you're
quoting) actually suggesting
that NO selectable variation was generated by a mutation ?

Dogs do show how wide variation can be, but they are still canines.

Don't those goal posts get heavy Ray ?

They can reproduce naturally. Can you show me any artificial breeder
who has produced an organism that cannot reproduce with the original
stock?

Yes - polychaete worms.

Of course you cannot. Evolution is false. And I intentionally said
'evolution' and not 'macroevolution.'

The 'difference' being what ? Oh yes - 'macroevolution' is evolution
to a degree that you can accept, while
full bore 'evolution' is evolution beyond what your simple little
'mind' can understand.

The uber-
dog on ye olde Ark
would have to, simultaneously, have traits to be a chihuahua AND a
Great Dane AND a St Bernard
AND a poodle AND a (huge list of dog breeds).

So?

You truly are oblivious to sarcasm, aren't you Ray ?

A much saner explanation is mutations generate random variations for
selection (natural or otherwise)
to work upon.

But if the mutation is random and selected then it cannot be truly
random if progress results, selection then was the result of
intelligence, direct Divine involvement, enter Mr. Paley, exit Mr.
Darwin.

Now THAT was silly !

If a mutation grants bacteria the ability to digest nylon subunits,
WHERE is the
intelligence guiding them ?

Are you SERIOUSLY CLAIMING that any mutation that grants an advantage
is
a direct result of divine intervention ?!?!

Mutations are random with respect to need. Some mutations are more
useful than others in a given
environment. These mutations will become more common as the
generations pass.

To get
anything really new for natural selection to act upon (thus bringing
about Darwinian evolution), there must be new genetic material. Where
does this new genetic information come from? According to
evolutionists, from genetic mutations. Mutations occur when the DNA
molecules of the parent organisms fail to correctly join, or when a
single DNA molecule fails to correctly replicate itself. Evolution,
according to Darwinists, is due basically to copying errors.

Mutations can be spontaneous or caused by radiation or highly toxic
chemicals. The results are dismally familiar: cancer, Down's syndrome,
dwarfism. Probably about 99 percent of mutations are harmful, about
90% are fatal.

In REALITY, the vast majority of mutations are neutral (no obvious
effect); the majority of those that have
noticeable effects are deleterious, but some are conditional (good or
bad depends on environmental context), and some
are known to be beneficial.

This is called putting a silk dress on a pig. Mr. Read's commentary
stands.

No, it doesn't, since in REALITY, the vast majority of mutations are
neutral (have little
if any observable effect). Of those that have an obvious effect, the
majority are deleterious,
but beneficial mutations are known to exist.

So, Mr Read is WRONG on two counts : the lethality of mutations, and
the idea that beneficial
mutations do not exist.

As Milton points out in Chapter 14, "Of Cabbages and Kings," no one
has ever observed a spontaneous inheritable genetic mutation that
resulted in a changed physical characteristic, aside from a small
group of well-known and usually fatal genetic defects.

RiiIIiiIIiiight !

Resistance to pesticides in insects is NOT a 'spontaneous inheritable
genetic mutation that results
in a changed physical characteristic' ?

Resistance to herbicides in plants don't count WHY ?

How does immunity or resistance count?

They are mutations that result in a changed physical characteristic,
twit !
Something Milton claims do not exist.

Ability for bacteria to digest novel substances don't count WHY ?

The vast majority of known mutations in Drosophila are NON-LETHAL
(changes in the color of wings and
body or eyes has little effect on survivability); how do you weasel
away from such facts Ray ?

Milton has neo-Darwinism right at this precise point. Things you
mentioned do not rise to the level of harming the fact reported by
Milton. No one has observed what Milton said in an animal or human.

Milton has not reported any facts, Ray.

Apolipoprotein AI Milano is a beneficial mutation in humans - it
reduces the risk of atherosclerosis
by accelerating the takeup of cholesterol.

Ability to digest lactose is beneficial (opens up a new food source);
several DIFFERENT mutations granted early
humans that ability.

There was something in the news recently about a mutation in the
regulation of salivary amylase that enables
groups of humans to digest starchy foods more efficiently.

A beneficial
spontaneous genetic mutation, though necessary to the Neo-Darwinian
theory of evolution, remains a hypothetical event.

Only true if you define 'hypothetical' as 'repeatedly observed'.

False! Fruit flies were addressed and the others have no bearing on
the issue (animals or humans).

Wrong again Ray - beneficial mutations HAVE BEEN OBSERVED. In many
critters.
INCLUDING HUMANS.

Moreover, Darwinism
provides no theoretical support for supposing that a mutation will be
one that the organism needs or will find useful in its environmental
niche. On the contrary, mutations are strictly random.

But SELECTION is not. If 100 different mutations occur, and 1 of them
is useful, that one
will tend to become more common in the population over the
generations.

Then selection was intelligent, if so, then there was no selection in
the Darwinian sense.

WHERE in my example did I say ANYTHING about an intelligent agent
doing anything Ray ?

If the water a fish swims in starts becoming colder, any mutation that
enables
them to function would be a BENEFICIAL MUTATION in that environmental
context. And there is no
guiding intelligence required in this case.

If you CLAIM there is a divine guiding intelligence in this case, then
it is UP TO YOU TO BACK
UP THE CLAIM by providing EVIDENCE that an divine guiding intelligence
exists, AND it is
actually in action. Good luck !

Against this background, the notion that mutations will ever yield
anything significantly helpful to the organism, much less a complex
new organ such as an eye, seems extremely unlikely.

Only if one were simple-minded enough to think that evolution is PURE
CHANCE.

Then why use the word ("chance") in the first place?

Because I was pointing out that only a simple-minded twit would think
that evolution
is PURE CHANCE !

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity
    ... random mutation and I assume natural selection. ... think (using empirical evidence to support your position) each of them ... I, in fact, did define evolution: ... Even Paley recognized variation within a species. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Does anybody want to proofread and criticize a 7000 plus word
    ... Statistical Probability in the Evolution of Mendelian Populations ... selection of slightly advantageous mutations that frequently recur, ... biased gene conversion, and some elements of neutral molecular ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Evolution is not a fact
    ... All made of what some term micro evolution. ... exactly what you mean by "species selection". ... different populations then external pressures can select one or the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution is not a fact
    ... All made of what some term micro evolution. ... selection as an example of this sort of thing, and so far you haven't addressed it. ... exactly what you mean by "species selection". ... Natural selection is the process that prevents billions ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Bipedalism in different substrates
    ... evolution occurs when a species ... It does this by reducing variation. ... > Selection is a brake, a mechanism to reduce variation, to weed out ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)