2 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

*isdupe>> ^mintbbb:

sorry, a dupe
dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Evolution-of-the-Batman-Logo

David Kirby:

I realize my Huffington essay was rather long and complicated. Here is a brief synopsis of just SOME of the larger points raised in the piece. I will probably alter this a little, but it hits most of the main topics. Please feel free to circulate - DK

● Up to 1 in 50 children (2%) may have a genetic mutation that puts them at risk for mitochondrial dysfunction.

● Up to 20% of all children with autism may have an underlying mitochondrial dysfunction

● Children with mitochondrial dysfunction are more likely to regress into autism between the ages 1 and 2 years, if they have fever or illness from viral infections or vaccines.

● The CDC is aware of this difficult situation and is taking measures immediately to address the current national vaccine schedule.

● The genetic susceptibility for mitochondrial dysfunction in autism is inherited through the father, not the mother, as previously thought, and is not rare at all.

● The DNA mutation might not be enough in itself to confer cellular dysfunction, and many doctors believe there is an environmental trigger as well.

● They note that thimerosal, mercury, aluminum, pollution, pesticides, medicines and prenatal alcohol exposure have all been shown to damage mitochondria.

● Other doctors believe that a corn-byproduct based diet in America has put children in a constant inflammatory state, thus making the DNA mutation more pathogenic.

● While some children with mitochondrial dysfunction regress into autism following fever and illness from a viral infection; other kids, like Hannah Poling, clearly regress following a reaction to vaccines.

● The exact percentage of people with vaccine induced autism is unknown. But even a 1% rate could mean 10,000 Americans with vaccine related autism, at a cost of many billions of dollars for lifetime care.

>> ^deathcow:

what if a mutating panel of 1 million people over the web decided what was decent


I'd by that for a dollar!

what if a mutating panel of 1 million people over the web decided what was decent

You didn't understand my post, and I can't be bothered to explain something that's not simple to someone who doesn't have any desire to learn. Sorry.

Your post was very simplistic..you propose an argument that we will eventually know everything (or rule god out) because science has explained things people use to think God directly inspired..which is false..science has not ruled out a supernatural causation for natural phenomena..we may know some of the ways but not the means

You then further try to say an infinite universe and a supernatural Creator are somehow logically equivilent ideas because they can both solve a particular problem, which is patently false, but of course this is what intellectually dishonest people do when they conduct their argument through ad homs. I advanced the questions I did as being fundemental to understanding life, which they are, and they are ones science knows nothing about. You go on to say I should "read a book". Well, I think that's a great idea and I recommend you do the same..specfically one on antisocial personality disorder.

Read Dawkins, instead of reading people quote-mining (or "summarizing") him. If you have read Dawkins, you haven't understood anything (at all). No way around that, sorry.

I did read dawkins, specifically his abominable God delusion where the idea is postulated that any appearance of design can be explained away by multiple universes. Of course, no word on where all those multiple universes come from, but that's the fun of science. You can postulate any lunatic theorum and cover it under an avalanche of imaginary "data" based entirely on speculation and conjecture. Then of course any ignoramous will buy it because science said it was true.

It will almost certainly happen in our lifetimes (assuming you're under 50) that people create life starting with inorganic chemicals. Will that change your mind at all? Of course not. How could it, when your belief system wasn't founded on reason to begin with? And, as before, there are already interesting ideas for how the first life could have formed. You may not find them credible (and certainly none has compelling evidence yet), but they're not metaphysical. But even if there was credible ideas it wouldn't matter to you, really, would it? Of course not, just move them goalposts.

They are entirely metaphysical, ie taken on faith. Evolution and abiogenesis are not testable theories. The mechanism of natural selection is not proven, and cannot even begin to account for the complexity of life. These theories have been elevated as some sort of unquestionable absolute that dogmatic materialists (and undoubtably secular humanists) take on faith, while pointing to pseudo-scientific research as science fact. As if somehow the methodology of scientific inquiry was respresentitive of the limits of reality itself. As far as abiogenesis is concerned, what was once a marxist wet dream hasn't moved one inch away from the sad experiments conducted in the 60s when they electrocuted pea soup. The theories it was based on have been entirely falsified. Abiogenesis is dead in the water, literally, and just wishing it was true isn't going to make it happen.

I guess add probability and infinity to the list of things you have no idea about. In short, yes those monkeys would - and we could make detailed predictions about how long it would likely take to get a sonnet, a play, or the entire collection. It would take a very, very long time for that last one obviously, but it would happen. Want to dispute that? Don't tell me about it. Again, I can't be bothered to teach you things you aren't interested in learning. Idiot.

lol, your entire post is just riddled with ad homs and childish conclusions with no supporting evidence. You have failed to prove that you know anything what so ever..extended diatribes and assertions of knowledge a counter-argument does not make. The probability of any of that ever happening in the timeline of the Universe is null and void. The odds of anything as complicated as a cell or dna arising from random mutation is expodentially less. The mechanism is completely unproven. Much like your presumption of superior knowledge.

you want a more detailed treatment of all this related stuff, Dawkins has written books that are easy to understand (very "pop science" level) that go over all this very clearly. At least by reading a couple you'd understand the other side (which you clearly, clearly do not at this point).

But if you don't want to know, just keep getting your stupid information and talking points from wherever the hell you're getting them now and go back under your rock.

read dawkins? He may be a passable biologist, but beyond that, its completely amatuer hour. Now that I know where you are getting your information from, I can understand why you think that using personal attacks is a demonstration of intellect. Have you ever had an original thought in your life? Lets see you flex this intellectual muscle you are bragging about...

Remarkably, every sentence you wrote except for one (I'll let you figure out which one it is) is factually incorrect, even the ones about monkeys and Dawkins.

Fortunately for me, many of them are debunked by some of my favourite videos and Wikipedia articles:

* Neil deGrasse Tyson explains what Fry means by God receeding (if you watch up to 2:20, you'll have enough of the picture, as long as you understand why apparent retrograde motion really happens). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_retrograde_motion
* The answer to a fundamental question about life
* It's the bible that draws upon the imagination alone. Science draws upon evidence. Ideas without evidence are not science.
* A single eternally living monkey at a single eternally functional typewriter would, on an infinite timeline, create everything ever written, not just Shakespeare. OR an infinite number of such monkeys at an infinite number of such typewriters would produce all the written works there ever have been or will be in the amount of time it takes to write the longest of them. That said, I don't see what this has to do with this argument, but decided to refute it anyway.
* Dawkins never said any such thing.

(edited)

>> ^shinyblurry:

The argument was that science has explained so much therefore God is barely even probable anymore. That's completely false..science has not answered a single fundemental question about life, or purpose, or the human condition. It just points to vaguer and vaguer conclusions, which draw entirely upon the imagination. The belief in abiogenesis for instance is a metaphysical belief. There is absolutely no evidence to ever suggest that life came from non-life. Nor is the evidence any good that something as complex as a cell or DNA could ever arise via random mutation. A billion monkeys on a billion typewriters are never going to write shakesphere. Even someone like dawkins admits the Universe appears to be designed..but posits that to explain that there are multiple universes and we just happen to live in the one that appears to be designed. That's not science, that's called living in denial.

The argument was that science has explained so much therefore God is barely even probable anymore. That's completely false..science has not answered a single fundemental question about life, or purpose, or the human condition. It just points to vaguer and vaguer conclusions, which draw entirely upon the imagination. The belief in abiogenesis for instance is a metaphysical belief. There is absolutely no evidence to ever suggest that life came from non-life. Nor is the evidence any good that something as complex as a cell or DNA could ever arise via random mutation. A billion monkeys on a billion typewriters are never going to write shakesphere. Even someone like dawkins admits the Universe appears to be designed..but posits that to explain that there are multiple universes and we just happen to live in the one that appears to be designed. That's not science, that's called living in denial.


>> ^messenger:
But, but, but, science DOES explain all the things that it claims to explain. It explains exactly and only those things. It just doesn't claim to explain everything! If God did start the big bang, and science eventually learns every single fact there is to know about the universe, it will be discovered that God exists and started the big bang. Then God and his role in the creation of the universe will be scientific fact. Same with Russel's Teapot -- science may one day prove that it exists. In the meantime, however, there's no sense in believing it, nor god. Science isn't anti-God; it's pro-truth.
So the rest of your argument is that God exists because science doesn't yet have the answers to everything?
MAKE SENSE!!!
(edited)>> ^shinyblurry:
Well, I would say the things that science claims to explain it really hasn't explained at all..yes, we have newtonian physics fairly well understood (maybe)..but quantum mechanics? not at all...Nor, are any real questions answers..such as how did the Universe get here? The big bang..how did the big bang happen? Complete mystery. How did life get here? "life from non life"..how did it happen? No idea. The fundemental questions all have great theories..but are really just in our imagination. I don't think anything about the human condition has ever been sufficiently explained, nor the meaningful questions about life..a materialist explanation must aprori rule out a supernatural one..but if time and space started at the beginning of the Universe then the explaination is by definition supernatural..i think all we've done is make the issue more complicated obfuscating the simplicity of it all

>> ^shinyblurry:

<multiple quotes>

So your evidence that evolution isn't real is a series of quotes, many of which disagree you, and only one of which is from the last decade essentially saying people view evolution too simplistically?

You won't surprise anyone by pointing out that scientific theories change over time to include newly discovered evidence. What you are lacking is an alternative theory that more accurately accounts for the available evidence.

As for your assertion that mutations can only destroy information.... No.

Your refutations were (in order)

"This guy believes in evolution"

"We can never prove anything about the fossil record"

"this quote is old"

"this guy is crazy"

"this quote is old"

"this guy is a probable creationist"

Yeah, amazing refutations..which you got from a website, while calling me out on doing the same thing. Evolutionists, biologists, palentologists etc DO dispute the theory of evolution..you were right though..the ones I provided were kind of weak. You'll have an infinitely harder time refuting these:

"With the failure of these many efforts [to explain the origin of life] science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate.

After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."

Loren C. Eiseley,
Ph.D. Anthropology. "The Immense Journey". Random House, NY, p. 199

"We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain:

I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other.

Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation."

Professor Jerome Lejeune,
Internationally recognised geneticist at a lecture given in Paris

"Considering its historic significance and the social and moral transformation it caused in western thought, one might have hoped that Darwinian theory ... a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a myth."

Michael Denton,
Molecular Biologist. "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". Adler and Adler, p. 358

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."

L.Harrison Matthews,
British biologist

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."


L. Harrison Matthews,
Introduction to 'Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life', p. xxii (1977 edition).


"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete, because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man."

Dr Albert Fleischmann. Recorded in Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (USA), 1983 p:120

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."


William B. Provine,
Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University, 'Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life', Abstract of Will Provine's 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.


"The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true believers ? [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance."


Hubert Yockey,
"Information Theory and Molecular Biology", Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 257


"As I said, we shall all be embarrassed, in the fullness of time, by the naivete of our present evolutionary arguments. But some will be vastly more embarrassed than others."


Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Principal Research Associate of the Center for Cognitive Science at MIT, "Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds," John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1994, p195)


"In 10 million years, a human-like species could substitute no more than 25,000 expressed neutral mutations and this is merely 0.0007% of the genome ?nowhere near enough to account for human evolution. This is the trade secret of evolutionary geneticists."

Walter James ReMine,
The Biotic Message : Evolution versus Message Theory


"Today, a hundred and twenty-eight years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. ... The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing dissent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretfully, as one could say. We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience'; but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."


Wolfgang Smith,
Mathematician and Physicist. Prof. of Mathematics, Oregon State University. Former math instructor at MIT. Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of de Chardin. Tan Books & Publishers, pp. 1-2


"If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You would find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals.
How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well-known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon.......In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth."


Sir Fred Hoyle,
British physicist and astronomer, The Intelligent Universe, Michael Joseph, London, pp. 20-21, 23.


"...(I)t should be apparent that the errors, overstatements and omissions that we have noted in these biology texts, all tend to enhance the plausibility of hypotheses that are presented. More importantly, the inclusion of outdated material and erroneous discussions is not trivial. The items noted mislead students and impede their acquisition of critical thinking skills. If we fail to teach students to examine data critically, looking for points both favoring and opposing hypotheses, we are selling our youth short and mortgaging the future of scientific inquiry itself."


Mills, Lancaster, Bradley,
'Origin of Life Evolution in Biology Textbooks - A Critique', The American Biology Teacher, Volume 55, No. 2, February, 1993, p. 83


"The salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred."


Wolfgang Smith,
Ph.D Mathematics , MS Physics Teilardism and the New Religion. Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.


"... as Darwinists and neo-Darwinists have become ever more adept at finding possible selective advantages for any trait one cares to mention, explanation in terms of the all-powerful force of natural selection has come more and more to resemble explanation in terms of the conscious design of the omnipotent Creator."


Mae-Wan Ho & Peter T. Saunders,
Biologist at The Open University, UK and Mathematician at University of London respectively


"In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong'. A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?"


Tom S. Kemp,
'A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record', New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, pp. 66-67


"We have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."


Niles Eldredge,
Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History, "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p144)


... by the fossil record and we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much.
The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."


David M. Raup,
Curator of Geology. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology". Field Museum of Natural History. Vol. 50, No. 1, p. 25


"Thus all Darwin's premises are defective: there is no unlimited population growth in natural populations, no competition between individuals, and no new species producible by selecting for varietal differences. And if Darwin's premises are faulty, then his conclusion does not follow. This, of itself, does not mean that natural selection is false. It simply means that we cannot use Darwin's argument brilliant though it was, to establish natural selection as a means of explaining the origin of species."


Robert Augros & George Stanciu,
"The New Biology: Discovering the Wisdom in Nature", New Science Library, Shambhala: Boston, MA, 1987, p.160).







>> ^MaxWilder:
What the hell are you talking about? I refuted every one of your quotes point by point! I provided links to further information. The whole point was that your "evidence" of paleontologists speaking out against evolution was utter bullshit!
The only one where I discredited the source was from some no-name Swedish biologist that nobody takes seriously. Every other source was either out of context (meaning you are not understanding the words properly), or out of date (meaning that science has progressed a little since the '70s).
You have got your head so far up your ass that you are not even coherent now.
But you know what might change my mind? If you cut&paste some more out of context, out of date quotes. You got hendreds of 'em! </sarcasm>
>> ^shinyblurry:
So basically, you cannot provide a refutation to the information itself but instead try to discredit the source.

"This is actually somewhat true. If breeds interbreed (derp, thats why they called breeds teehee?) there is very little chance of speciation occurring. Seperate a Great Dane a Chihuahua by a huge expanse of water for long enough though and eventually they will diverge to the point where they can no longer produce fertile offspring, or in other words, become a different species."

I don't think it really matters how long you wait or if one of the dogs lives in Alpha Centari..they will still just produce dogs according to the evidence. I suppose you could cook up anything and make it seem real by adding the magic value of millions of years..but without any real evidence its just pie in the sky

"I'd like to see you define a "fully formed" species. Honestly, this really shows how badly you misunderstand evolution. You are a transitional species, we all are, every single living thing on this planet is in some sense transitional. This misunderstanding of evolution seems to stem from the belief that it all happens at once, suddenly one day a bird hatches out of a dinosaur egg. Honey, it don't work like that, its millions of tiny changes from one generation to the next."

Fully formed as in, no true ancestors. There aren't any true ancestors for any of the major groups. There simply is no evidence in the fossil record demonstrating macro evolution which of course is seriously embarassing to darwinian theory. I highly doubt that darwin himself would maintain that his theory was true, just on the basis of the complexity of the cell and the DNA molecule alone.

"I really encourage you to learn more about speciation. It seems you accept that species do mutate to better survive, but you don't believe that results in them forming a whole new species. Thats quite a reasonable position to take but there is plenty of evidence explaining how speciation actually occurs. Gogo read up on it, its fascinating."

I will check it out. It sounds interesting.. Here is something I recommend...

A critique of 29 evidences for macro evolution

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp

"No, I don't. That's the whole point..they're all dogs, there is no difference in kind. Do it for 500 or 500 million, you'll have the same result..dogs. "

This is actually somewhat true. If breeds interbreed (derp, thats why they called breeds teehee?) there is very little chance of speciation occurring. Seperate a Great Dane a Chihuahua by a huge expanse of water for long enough though and eventually they will diverge to the point where they can no longer produce fertile offspring, or in other words, become a different species.

"Every species we observe is completely fully formed, showed up suddenly in the fossil record with no ancestors. If evolution were true, we would see species in transition from one kind to another today, which we don't. We would find ancestors in the fossil record which showed the tranistions. We don't. If evolution ever happened, it is not observable today anywhere, especially the fossil record."

I'd like to see you define a "fully formed" species. Honestly, this really shows how badly you misunderstand evolution. You are a transitional species, we all are, every single living thing on this planet is in some sense transitional. This misunderstanding of evolution seems to stem from the belief that it all happens at once, suddenly one day a bird hatches out of a dinosaur egg. Honey, it don't work like that, its millions of tiny changes from one generation to the next.

"The "advantage" is only good for the circumstance, and when the circumstance is gone, the population returns to normal. For instance, when bacteria produce this mutation for resistance, it always makes them less effecient..it always at the sacrifice of something else. There was nothing added and nothing new created..things only got shuffled around. These mutations don't ever survive in the wild."

Again, this somewhat true. Adaptions for a specific thing often come at a price. Its why we still see so many simple organisms sitting around, bacteria still exists and has not evolved into more complex forms because simple works for that bacteria. If there is no strong evolutionary pressure then why evolve? However, there is PLENTY of pressure to evolve, be it exploiting a new niche, adapting better to hunt new prey or to survive in a different environment.

I really encourage you to learn more about speciation. It seems you accept that species do mutate to better survive, but you don't believe that results in them forming a whole new species. Thats quite a reasonable position to take but there is plenty of evidence explaining how speciation actually occurs. Gogo read up on it, its fascinating.

"Shiny, you don't think that the same process that created a Great Dane and a Chihuahua in less than five-hundred years could produce two distinct species in the space of millions of years?"

No, I don't. That's the whole point..they're all dogs, there is no difference in kind. Do it for 500 or 500 million, you'll have the same result..dogs.

"When you say that "mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species" has never been observed, do you think that could possibly be in any way related to the fact that what you're talking about takes place over millions of years, and the human lifespan is only about eighty years? Huh? Do you think that might have something to do with it?"

Yes, this was a dumb question. Every species we observe is completely fully formed, showed up suddenly in the fossil record with no ancestors. If evolution were true, we would see species in transition from one kind to another today, which we don't. We would find ancestors in the fossil record which showed the tranistions. We don't. If evolution ever happened, it is not observable today anywhere, especially the fossil record.

"If a bacterium becomes immune to a drug that effects it negatively by getting rid of the sequence that the drug affects, that's an advantage. It doesn't matter if it makes it fare worse than before in the general population. Because if it reproduces at all, and a drug kills off the rest of the population, then guess what? That mutated bacterium has just become the new king of the hill hasn't he? And guess what else? It's DNA will continue to produce more DNA, some of which will be extraneous and be used as the building block for? You guessed it, completely new, never before seen sequences of DNA!!!"

The "advantage" is only good for the circumstance, and when the circumstance is gone, the population returns to normal. For instance, when bacteria produce this mutation for resistance, it always makes them less effecient..it always at the sacrifice of something else. There was nothing added and nothing new created..things only got shuffled around. These mutations don't ever survive in the wild.

"It's DNA will continue to produce more DNA, some of which will be extraneous and be used as the building block for? You guessed it, completely new, never before seen sequences of DNA!!!"

that's the magic part..it doesn't ever happen.



>> ^Ryjkyj:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Species always produce according to their kind. Dogs don't ever produce non-dogs. What you're talking about is micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is completely different. That's the theory of mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species..problem is it has never been observed. Not only has nothing ever been found in the fossil record to prove this, the theory itself doesn't work. It has never been once demonstrated that a mutation produced anything useful or added information to a genome..mutations actually destroy information..and if you want to use the bacteria example, the reason bacteria become resistant is not because they evolved a defense..but rather lost the information that the drug used to bind to it..basically, its like the drug is hand cuffing everyone but cant handcuff the one with no arms. That isnt an advatange..when you put the bacteria into the general population they fare worse than before. It's pure metaphysics..and it all goes back to the source of the lie, which is abiogenesis..life from non-life. This basically states that we evolved from rocks..I think that takes a fair amount of faith..a lot more than I have.
>> ^Ryjkyj:
The proof isn't in the fossil record, because fossils are extremely rare. The proof is in your genetics.
If species don't evolve, how do you explain the massive, rapid, observable evolution in dogs over just the last 500 years?


Shiny, you don't think that the same process that created a Great Dane and a Chihuahua in less than five-hundred years could produce two distinct species in the space of millions of years?
Now, I'm going to ask what may seem to you like a really dumb question: When you say that "mutations being naturally selected over time to change one species to another species" has never been observed, do you think that could possibly be in any way related to the fact that what you're talking about takes place over millions of years, and the human lifespan is only about eighty years? Huh? Do you think that might have something to do with it?
It's really admirable that you read Reverend Billy's latest cut-and-paste pamphlet on the nature of mutation and why it means you should kill people for eating shellfish. But your knowledge of the science is, I think, a little lacking as far as giving you the ability to disprove the conclusions of hundreds of thousands of researchers who base their opinion on actual observation. Mutations don't just "destroy information" in the genome. There are all sorts of ways that mutations can form new information in a sequence of DNA. But either way it's a moot point, because you still don't understand the nature of natural selection.
If a bacterium becomes immune to a drug that effects it negatively by getting rid of the sequence that the drug affects, that's an advantage. It doesn't matter if it makes it fare worse than before in the general population. Because if it reproduces at all, and a drug kills off the rest of the population, then guess what? That mutated bacterium has just become the new king of the hill hasn't he? And guess what else? It's DNA will continue to produce more DNA, some of which will be extraneous and be used as the building block for? You guessed it, completely new, never before seen sequences of DNA!!!
If you doubt that, why don't you try reading an actual book on the subject? (note: I'm talking about a book that actually includes words like: mutation, DNA and sequence. Not a book that you interpret through allegory as being about the subject)
Now, this is the part where you call me out as being angry/abusive. Please note that I'm using the exact same tone of language here as Pastor nitwit uses in that god awful series of videos that you asked me to watch. (note all the explanation points!!!!)

>> ^shinyblurry:

The experiment you're talking about did not produce anything new..the proteins for the adaptation existed in the genome from generation 1..it was merely a rearrangement of proteins that were already there.

So you're fine with a new and useful ability being produced through mutation as long as it isn't demonstrated to be the result of an increase in total genetic information?

Just curious, do you also hold that it has never been demonstrated that any creature has produced viable offspring with more genetic information that itself?

There's no evidence to demonstrate wolf to dog evolution either. I think their best evidence is a mandible found near a campsite. In *every* case like this, when you research the actual evidence you'll find there isn't any..and it is all based on inference and conjecture. Wolves don't produce tame offspring btw, no matter how many generations around humans. And yes, you can prove a negative..no senators are declared muslims. That's easily proven.

The experiment you're talking about did not produce anything new..the proteins for the adaptation existed in the genome from generation 1..it was merely a rearrangement of proteins that were already there. I'll rephrase my statement..no mutation produced a useful adaptation by adding anything new to the genome, which supports why macro-evolution has never been observed anywhere.
>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Dogs don't ever produce non-dogs.
Just like wolves never produced dogs?
>> ^shinyblurry:
It has never been once demonstrated that a mutation produced anything useful or added information to a genome..mutations actually destroy information
You can never prove a negative, but you can certainly disprove it.