The Central Flaw of Evolution

For example the information to create a new feature such as a wing or a feather. Feathers are made from a different gene sequence than a scale. They attach to the body differently. The only thing that makes them similar is what they're made of.

 

They should, but do they actually DO?

 

Since you know so much about genetics, I'm sure you can explain for us what mechanism prevents mutations from being passed along.

 

So what you are saying is all of the ingredients are there but how they are measured and cooked will end up with a different result.

 

Who decides for all what is the observed reality and by what authority? How does one observe the reality of a species from the earliest spark of life to today?

 

I'm afraid your mistaken. You claimed that chromosome fusion was "only wishful thinking & conjecture", so I presented a paper showing that it had been observed in grasshoppers. Your response that they did not create a new species tells me you think that this one mutation should have created a new species which is not what Evolution says.

What you call "variability within an organism" represents about a 0.1% difference, or 3 million in the roughly 3 billion base pairs of the human genome. The chimpanzee genome is about 4% different, or 120 million base pairs, so what mechanism limits genetic variation within a species?

When you consider the fact that every individual human carries 100 to 200 mutations in their genes, if the bolded part were true, we would all be dead. Genetic studies show that most mutations are neutral, and while most of the non-neutral mutations are harmful, the few beneficial mutations have the benefit of time and numbers.

- - - Updated - - -

In that case, you should be able to tell us what Aristotle had for breakfast on his 21st birthday.

 

Nobody decides observed reality, you just observe it. Now, EXTRAPOLATIONS about this reality are different & subjective. But that does not change or affect observed reality.

Are you assuming evolution in your 2nd question? IF you first ASSUME evolution, then ask how everything evolved from the 'earliest spark of life to today', you are merely begging the question. You start with the assumption of evolution, then ask how it happened. That is circular reasoning, & does not aid the ToE at all.

We OBSERVE variety in many species, & similarity with some. Genetics has give us better tools than 'look like' descendancy claims, as it provides observable data that proves the claim. Mere visual taxonomy does not do that, & relies too much on subjectivism. For example, we 'know' that dogs & wolves had the same ancestors.. along with dingos, african wild dogs, coyotes, & some others. We can trace the mitochondrial gene from the mother to prove descendancy. We don't have to go with, 'that sure looks like a dog... i'm bettin' it's a descendant!' And, if you get a gazelle that someone insists 'looks like a dog!', you have valid science to refute the claim, instead of 'Yes it is!' 'No it isn't!' subjective opinion.

So the 'reality' of a species is something measurable.. we have the genome pairs, the chromosomes, & the traditional capacity of interbreeding to indicate descendancy. But to claim UNIVERSAL descendancy is not proven, & is actually impossible. Gene don't do that $ht..

 

Considering how genetically similar feathers and scales are, finding the exact sequence of mutations would be very difficult, but not impossible. The mechanisms which allow scales to become feathers have been observed on much smaller scales.

 

are consistent with opr conmf

The first postulators of evolution Did Observe current reality, ie Darwin's Finches, Humans and Apes, scores of other related groups, and they logically worked backward.. later with the help of Geology, Isotopic dating, DNA, etc
All the new sciences that came along in the last incredibly high tech 150 years, any of which could have blown Evo.. .. Guess what. They wall were consistent with or helped confirm it.
That is Not 'Circular reasoning.' You are disingenuously confusing terms.

Yes and we can do the SAME "descendancy" trick between species and with Our own ancestors.
Imagine, if you will, how amazing it would be if human DNA was also not very gradual in evolving from our relatives.
Imagine if you would, if human life was very different DNA-wise from the apparently observable and fossil chain, or based on a totally different chemical make up.
Then Creationists WOULD have a claim.
Only evolution predicts regularly and finds intermediate species.
See my string, ie, on the very un-ID Anatomical vestiges we/other species carry around.
No one touched it.
It should be right up your alley.. if there was any.
http://www.politicalforum.com/science/441501-yet-more-evidence-evolution-anatomical-vestiges.html

Theories don't get "proven", but we confirm universal descendancy more every year since ToE was proposed.
Again, every new science is consistent with or confirms it, and only Evo routinely predicts, and routinely finds, intermediate species.
Thousands and thousands of times.

 

We haven't been around long enough as a species to observe much of anything (certainly not document it)..... We rely on geology, archaeology and anthropology but their findings are sketchy at best - conjecture....

This is a huge puzzle, and maybe one day we will solve it, but to call anything such as "evolution" fact would be an insult to the concept of science...

Let's not forget that some of the greatest minds believed that the Sun orbited the Earth.....

I suppose my point is science is usually wrong 99% of the time, but you know what? you can only be right if you're first wrong...

 

Indeed, thus reality is relative to the observer thus subjective.

Observation is the weakest form of evidence as our senses are easily fooled. This is why we need the scientific method and repeatable experiments that consistently yield the same results to back a claim of reality aka a fact.

No.

The scope of your assessment is statistically insignificant when weighed against the entire timeline of life on this planet. How can one make any absolute claim based upon incomplete evidence?

The inability to prove the positive is not proof of the negative. To claim it "is actually impossible" is to assume that all there is to know on the subject is known, which would be a silly claim to make. Upon a regressive analysis of life on earth one will inexorably reach a point where one has to admit that they just do not know all the answers nor is it likely that all the questions we have on the subject can be answered.

 

Basically yeah. Can you show anything that disprove that? Can you make bread without dough?

 

ToE is the best theory we have.

 

Do you also think calling "gravity" a fact is an insult to the concept of science? Words frequently have different meanings depending on the context in which they are used. Evolution is a FACT in that we have actually observed and measured change in living organisms. Evolution is also a THEORY that attempts to explain how that change occurs and why we see the diversity of species that we do. That is how scientists knew to look for transitional forms between fish and tetrapods in the Canadian Arctic.

Let's not forget that it was the scientific method which cause people to question that belief in the first place. Heliocentrism first arose in the third century BCE, but fell out of favor during the Middle Ages when religion was expanding its influence. Since Copernicus rediscovered the theory in 1543, no great mind has believed otherwise. Besides, the strength of a theory rests on how useful it is, not how many people believe it, and Evolution is still the best theory explaining the diversity of species.

 

I totally agree with you. I was just testing you.

 

You are suggesting mutation as the mechanism for positive change. Mutations cannot add genomes, create all the components of an eye simultaneously, convert scales to feathers, cold blood to warm, create new chromosomes at the same time in the same species making a matched, breedable pair with identical mutations, & the myriads of combinations & complexity that we observe. IF you are claiming that mutation CAN do this, you will have to prove it, scientifically, with repeatable, observable, reviewable experiment, else your claims are mere speculation & conjecture. You can dance around the central issue, but it does not change the facts. Mutation & time do not provide a mechanism for this, no matter how many times it is authoritatively asserted. You have to prove it. Making variations within grasshoppers through mutation does not provide any evidence of vertical, increasing complexity evolution. It is just a aberration in the horizontal movement of variation.

This kind of experimentation has been attempted for decades.. forced mutations have been made in millions of experiments, but with no success in proving the claim. Experimentally & scientifically, mutation has NOT been shown to be a valid mechanism for increasing complexity, & it is just clung to as a theoretical plausible possibility. But that is not proven science. That is not gravity, or entropy. That is speculation.

 

You are merely deflecting, & avoiding the central issue. Side points about comparative religion are irrelevant. Arguing with a straw man is a diversion. the ToE does not 'find' new species or intermediate ones. You just have fallible, biased humans pitching their opinions as fact, without any evidence. You only have ridicule & false equivalence. I'll repeat the challenge that you conveniently ignored:

Show me. Talk is cheap. Show me ONE valid bit of evidence that demonstrates HOW you can go from 20 or 26 or whatever you presume genome pairs to the human & chimp 23 & 24. It is physically & genetically IMPOSSIBLE, yet you assert it as true as gravity. I can measure gravity. I can repeat it. I can observe it. I cannot measure, repeat or observe anything of the sort in life of this nature. It is contrary to genetics, & is a biological impossibility.

 

I submit that there is an OBJECTIVE reality that is indifferent & unaffected by our opinions, perceptions, or beliefs. It is not all dependent on our perception. Our perceptions can certainly be wrong, but that does not invalidate objective reality.

Exactly. That is why repeatable, observable, reviewable SCIENCE has been the standard for discovery for some time, now. But it has not always been this way, & there are no guarantees this methodology will continue. There are certainly unsettling trends in the science community that threaten this proven system of discovery.

..my point exactly. The 'theory' of evolution is not based on solid evidence, but incomplete.. speculations & extrapolations built upon assumptions. HOW can they make 'any absolute claim' based on this? But they do.

We can only go with the facts we have. We cannot speculate that we will have specific facts in the future. That is guesswork. Especially, if the alleged 'facts' have been shown to be scientifically impossible. Universal descendancy, aka, the amoeba to man theory of evolution, is NOT proven, & it is genetically IMPOSSIBLE. To suggest that someday proof will be given to show how it is possible is fine, as wishful thinking, but it does not negate the current determination of facts by the scientific method. It is like speculating that someday it will be proven that aliens were responsible for seeding life on earth. We cannot prove or disprove that scientifically, & it remains a statement of belief, not science.

 

Don't we in the lab have the ability to manipulate and add genes, they do that in modifying plants all the time, so if we can do mutations in the lab its not implausible natural mutations giving enough time would alter natural species say a million years of trial and error.

I would add we don't need to prove the mechanism just that a species did transition and change the mechanics can deal with as a secondary matter in the theory.

We can't demonstrate the internal workings of a Black Hole our knowledge breaks down but they exist using the working knowledge we have that doesn't mean we toss out the best working theory on how they are formed and function, does it?

 

What does it matter to you if the Theory of Evolution is flawed or not? String theory is so flawed that many physicists question its validity as a theory, yet there have been only a handful of threads about it compared to the mountain of threads about evolution and I have NEVER seen you create a thread about it. Is biology somehow more important than physics or is there something else? My guess is that you have a personal or political agenda.

The thing is, biologist are not going to get rid of evolution because there are some that think it flawed. It is the ONLY theory that explains the diversity of life. Until another theory comes along that explains it better, it is all we have.

 

There's no evidence that dinosaurs ever had feathers or scale can turn into feathers.
http://creation.mobi/feathered-dinosaurs-not-feathers

 

you seem to have a fatal lack of knowledge about Evolution

 

You seem to lack the ability to refute the link.

 

The link contain nothing beyond Creationist Opinion and virtually refutes itself when taken in the context of accepted and verified scientific study.

Regardless, trying to explain these things to you is akin to expecting a second grade student to solve trigonometry equations.

 

I agree.

Science is full of speculation that we then base hypothesis and theory upon. When exploring the unknown where we only have a few pieces of the puzzle we can speculate on the missing pieces where the speculation is a placeholder for a future verification or refutation.

And the above is making a absolute claim based upon incomplete evidence. You are doing the very thing that you argue against. You speak with conviction but uppercase words do not make you right nor does it make you wrong as from my perspective there are too many pieces of the puzzle missing to make any absolute claims.

Operative word current as opposed to absolute. In science some of today's scientific facts are tomorrow's fallacies as not all facts can stand the test of time. The graveyard of science is littered with former facts that were refuted. So it stands to reason that some of what we perceive as reality right now is actually a fallacy that we are basing ironically labeled facts upon.