The Central Flaw of Evolution

If mutations had to appear simultaneously in two individuals to make a breedable pair, then life as we know it wouldn't exist. When even a million base pair differences doesn't prevent two humans from reproducing, what makes you think that a couple of hundred mutations would be a problem?

Except the mechanisms for evolution have been observed repeatedly. If you are going to claim that the small changes we observe cannot create the large differences we see between species, then you have to provide a mechanism which prevents it.

 

I think you need to reconsider your definition of evidence.

http://discovermagazine.com/2012/oct/25-feathered-dino

 

And how does a gene know that it has reached a "parameter" and has to stop changing? Does God tell it?

Seems to me the fatal flaw is yours.

Not true. The variability in dogs is vastly greater than the variability in wolves. That's all down to humans.

When you declare that something is "scientifically impossible," does that mean that you have actually read science on the subject? Or does that mean that it disagrees with your religious beliefs, and therefore you prefer to think that it's "scientifically impossible"?

Sapre, A. B., and Dayarani S. Deshpande. "A change in chromosome number due to cytomixis in an interspecific hybrid of Coix L." Cytologia 52.1 (1987): 167-174.

Rogers, Matthew B., et al. "Chromosome and gene copy number variation allow major structural change between species and strains of Leishmania." Genome research 21.12 (2011): 2129-2142.

Wilson, Allan C., Vincent M. Sarich, and Linda R. Maxson. "The importance of gene rearrangement in evolution: evidence from studies on rates of chromosomal, protein, and anatomical evolution." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 71.8 (1974): 3028-3030.

Ota, Takahide, et al. "Increased mitotic phosphorylation of histone H3 attributable to AIM-1/Aurora-B overexpression contributes to chromosome number instability." Cancer Research 62.18 (2002): 5168-5177.

Nias, A. H. W., and C. H. Ockey. "Change in chromosome number during continuous irradiation." Nature 206, 840 - 841 (22 May 1965); doi:10.1038/206840a0

Lysak, Martin A., et al. "Mechanisms of chromosome number reduction in Arabidopsis thaliana and related Brassicaceae species." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103.13 (2006): 5224-5229.

Mayrose, Itay, Michael S. Barker, and Sarah P. Otto. "Probabilistic models of chromosome number evolution and the inference of polyploidy." Systematic Biology 59.2 (2010): 132-144.

Guerra, Marcelo. "Chromosome number variation and evolution in monocots." Monocots: systematics and evolution. CSIRO, Melbourne (2000): 127-136.

Johnson, Lowell B., et al. "Variation in phenotype and chromosome number in alfalfa protoclones regenerated from nonmutagenized calli." Crop Science 24.5 (1984): 948-951.

Gross, Samson R., Ann Mary, and Pearl H. Levine. "Change in chromosome number associated with a double deletion in the Neurospora crassa mitochondrial chromosome." Genetics 121.4 (1989): 685-691.

Jones, Keith. "Chromosome changes in plant evolution." Taxon (1970): 172-179.

Sref Ramulu, K., et al. "Variation in phenotype and chromosome number of plants regenerated from protoplasts of dihaploid and tetraploid potato." Plant breeding 97.2 (1986): 119-128.

Schubert, I., and R. Rieger. "A new mechanism for altering chromosome number during karyotype evolution." Theoretical and applied genetics 70.2 (1985): 213-221.​

That sure doesn't look "scientifically impossible" to me.

 

How do they know the feathers aren't a natural rock formation or fraying scales?

 

Its called science.

 

Specifically how? All the feathers on dinosaurs so far have been proven to be either the process of decaying or a natural rock formation.

 

1. All your posts are wise crack one liners. not good faith replies.
2. It's difficult to even Find your posts as they are always One nonsense line, while your Signature is 5 Double Spaced ones that dwarfs all of them. "where's the beef?" Let's see your write a paragraph showing your knowledge or refutation of anything in this string, or at least make ONE post longer than your sig.

 

that would be a big fat NO.

apparently your science knowledge is rather deficient in the area of paleontology.

 

Same way science knows the difference between a knife wound and a bullet wound. The same way they know a dog skull form a wolf skull. The same way they know the difference between fingerprints. Forensics.

 

I think this illustrates a basic flaw in the science of genetics. I am no expert, only a hobbyist. But the fundamental assumptions about evolution come down to a flawed perception of genetics. I think some people view the dna strand as a big Lego block assembly.. the parts can be assembled in multiple ways, in various combinations. The universally click into each other & are consistent across all living things. But there are major differences among genetic strands. Most bacteria have a circular strand. There are prokaryotes, eukaryotes, & karyotypes within. They are not interchangeable, & have completely different processes, materials, functions, & abilities. The more we study genetics, the more complex & profound it becomes. Traits are passed down in the dna of each living thing. Pop science notions, promoted by the movie industry & simplified in children's books make it sound like tweaking the dna & 'creating' new species is easy, & a given. Terms like 'clone' are used to imply a sheep was grown in a laboratory. X-men, Jurassic Park, & countless other movies & fantasies about genetic possibilities are indoctrinated from birth. A narrative is promoted. Life is simple building blocks, & you can put a bunch of legos in a bag, shake it up, & out comes a functional dna strand that you can seed to grow a living thing. Too much is assumed, in what goes on in genetically modified organisms. they can 'knock out' certain genes, & introduce minor tweaks to an organism, wrt disease resistance & altering certain traits. But the idea that geneticists can 'create' new life is a myth. They cannot modify the genome pairs, or make a new organism with a distinctly new genetic structure. they can modify certain genes, 'knock out' others, & introduce material that changes the disease resistance or some other result. But the more they 'tweak' the dna, the chromosomes, the genomes, & all the other bits & pieces of information that are within EACH cell of every living thing, the more impossible the ToE becomes. We cannot even force the kinds of changes we posit that happen 'naturally' in the ToE. It is an imaginary process, with NO scientific corroboration.

Geneticists have made a translucent cat & pig. They introduced some green fluorescent proteins, observed in jellyfish, into these mammals. But this is just tweaking WITHIN the parameters of the basic genome structure. They do not add or subtract genome pairs, which is the basic difference between animal types. But the pigs remain pigs, & the cats, cats. They do not alter their basic genetic architecture. Chimps have 24 genome pairs. Humans have 23. It has been suggested that humans descended from chimps, & that 2 of their genomes merely fused to make 23. But this is flawed in too many ways.

1. Humans & chimps cannot interbreed. So in order to get a breeding pair, you would need 2 concurrent mutations of this sort, which cannot be replicated or observed in laboratory settings, which would have to simultaneously occur in the same geographic area, at the exact same time, so they could begin their new journey as humans. Just one of these events is astronomically impossible & unproven, yet they dogmatically assert this is what happened.
2. All the rest of the taxonomy is wrong, so where did this variety that we observe in humans come from? Intelligence, upright walking, & thousands of differences between chimps & humans are observed in the gene pool. How did these genes come about?
3. The mitochondrial gene is passed down from mother to daughter in every mammal. IF there was descendancy, this gene would show it. Humans & chimps would carry this gene, if they are commonly descended. Dogs & wolves carry this, & it shows a common descendancy. The fact that humans & chimps don't, indicates they are not related, or descended from a common ancestor.

There may be a better explanation, someday, for a naturalistic view of life, but evolution, as presented, is not it.

I'm a bit of a science geek. I am intrigued by Truth & Reality, & have been a seeker for them all my life. I don't really care what others BELIEVE, but when their beliefs are mandated as dogmatic truth, it rubs me the wrong way. I thought that was what the age of reason was about.. casting off the prejudices of superstition, & using science as a method of discovery.

I disagree about SCIENCE having to have a default view of anything. If 'i don't know' is the best answer, we have to go with it, until a better one shows up. Discovery is not about postulating what 'might' have happened only, but proving what is, & what did happen, using empirical methodology. Speculations abound in the world, & merely asserting them does not make them true.. they have to be proven by science.

I bolded the above, to remind you this is EXACTLY what i have been saying. We do not have to come up with some fancy notion of origins, just because we do not know. We can look for evidence. We can postulate theories. We can create plausible scenarios. But if they do not have scientific corroboration, they are merely speculations & conjecture. It is not science. It is philosophy masquerading behind terminology & mandates. Where have i 'made a claim based on incomplete evidence?' My posts here are full of skepticism for the fantastic claims within the ToE. It is a flawed theory, based on faulty assumptions, bad science, & philosophical agendas.

I do NOT see any conclusion that you HAVE to accept a metaphysical explanation of origins, just because the ToE is flawed, or proven impossible. There are likely other possibilities, not just posited, but ignored because the ToE has become the status quo of indoctrination on origins, for the naturalistic view. It is scientifically impossible to argue against supernatural explanations, because they can always just say, 'God did it'. You cannot refute that with any scientific arguments, and that discussion remains outside of the bounds of empiricism. It IS a metaphysical explanation, & is beyond the scope of science to examine.

The ToE, otoh, claims to have scientific backing, & as such is subject to scrutiny. We can examine the science & the claims, & it can be corroborated or refuted based on facts. So unless a mystical mechanism is suggested by evolution... that is, something unknown, unseen, & based on conjecture, the mechanism for this process is not verifiable by the scientific method. It does not exist, scientifically, & is just a declared mechanism, like, 'God did it'.

 

There is a lot of difference between minor mutations in a gene, & major ones to the architecture of the genome. This is the major flaw. It is assuming that small variations on a horizontal level can add up, incrementally to large changes in the architecture. But this is not observable.. it has no mechanism defined as to HOW it can happen, since the science of genetics forbids this kind of change. It is like starting with a house, & saying it could be remodeled into a skyscraper, with just small changes here & there. Unless you change the foundation & basic structure, any remodeling is cosmetic. We observe the cosmetic, horizontal changes.. we call that variability. We do NOT observe any changes in the basic structure.. that is assumed & declared, with no scientific evidence.

 

"For billions of years, the history of life has been written with just four letters — A, T, C and G, the labels given to the DNA subunits contained in all organisms. That alphabet has just grown longer, researchers announce, with the creation of a living cell that has two 'foreign' DNA building blocks in its genome.

Hailed as a breakthrough by other scientists, the work is a step towards the synthesis of cells able to churn out drugs and other useful molecules. It also raises the possibility that cells could one day be engineered without any of the four DNA bases used by all organisms on Earth.

“What we have now is a living cell that literally stores increased genetic information,” says Floyd Romesberg, a chemical biologist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, who led the 15-year effort. Their research appears online today in Nature."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-life-with-alien-dna-created-in-lab/

Whatever you say Mr. Hobbyist.

 

It's a dog eat dog world. Dogs are common human companions. We have domesticated & bred them for centuries. Here are some interesting facts & studies about dogs, & their genetic base.

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/16/8/990.full

This is a study by evolutionists, with the assumptions of evolution dispersed throughout. They even quote Darwin. I'll try to define the problem as they present it.

1. All of the variety of dogs are recent developments, less than 200 yrs old.
2. Fact: Selection acts on EXISTING variability. It is not created on the fly, & is assumed to take thousands or millions of years to come about.
3. ALL of this variability EXISTED in the ancestral wolf/parent.
4. the recent time for the variety of dog breeds is incongruent with the assumption of 'millions' or even thousands of years of evolution, to generate such variety.

You can see from the following chart, where they mapped the genome sequence, & followed the trail of the mtDNA:

As you can see, the mtDNA shows the ancestry line. The canid ancestor preceded the wolf, the dog, & the coyote, as well as other canid not listed. I have seen them in other genetic studies. But all this does is PROVE descendancy, and shows the variability to be INHERENT in the genes. It was not created on the fly, or mutated over millions of years. So postulating evolution as an explanation of the canid species is flawed. It did not happen as the ToE suggested, & there is still no mechanism for 'creating' variability. And the assumption of genome additions or subtractions are absurd. That cannot happen at all, yet it is assumed as fact. It is a myth, based on conjecture, flawed assumptions, & faulty science. It is a RELIGIOUS opinion, nothing more. It is a lame attempt to tack a 'science' label on a speculative, philosophical opinion of naturalistic origins.

 

You have certainly succeeded in illustrating a basic flaw, but it is with your understanding of the ToE, not any perception of genetics. The Theory of Evolution does not say that pigs and cats will evolve into anything that is not a pig or a cat. When the various species of cats evolved from the original feline, they didn't stop being felines. When felines evolved from the first carnivores, they didn't stop being carnivores. When carnivores evolved from the first mammals, they didn't stop being mammals. When mammals evolved from the first vertebrates, they didn't stop being vertebrates.

How do you know that humans & chimps cannot interbreed? Do you know anyone who has tried? Even if they cannot, the chromosomal difference wouldn't be the reason, otherwise donkeys and zebras wouldn't be able to interbreed. And before you bring up the sterility of these hybrids, science has linked this to changes in specific genes, not the chromosomes themselves.

I don't know what you're trying to say in number 3, but science has compared human and chimp mitochondrial genes, and they are just as similar as our other genes.

Science is always open to better explanations, which is why simply pointing out problems with the Theory of Evolution is not enough. You need to propose a new theory that does a better job of explaining the diversity of life we observe around us.

Just because we don't have a complete understanding of how genes work does not prevent us from drawing conclusions about how two species are related. Just as one does not need to understand Latin to know if someone plagiarized from Newton's Principia, we can infer common descent through changes in our DNA. This web site does a good job of explaining how endogenous retroviruses provide some of the strongest evidence for the Theory of Evolutionary. http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm

 

That is an option.

1. Believe what 'really smart people' say, that you trust.
2. Research & discover for yourself, what is valid & carries scientific validity.
3. Ignore everything, ridicule everyone, & declare everything to be absurd.

You have merely presented a summary conclusion, with NO evidence to support such a conclusion. This is an example of 'declared science' that i have mentioned many times in this thread.

 

I see...so how many genetics experiments have you preformed in you Lab?
I am incapable of doing so myself and thus must reply on verified and agreed upon actions of those who are trained and capable.
I do not see the presentation of data to be a form of ridicule and that you do is unfortunate and telling.

 

That is a pure bird. Swans, ostriches, and many other birds have claws on their wings. Also there a hummingbird with a toothed bill.

 

The problem with your arguments is that the Theory of Evolution was formulated 100 years before DNA was discovered so it really isn't dependent on DNA, it's just that DNA gave biologists a missing piece to the puzzle, but with of without DNA, the Theory of Evolution would still be valid.

I totally agree with this, except saying that "discovery is not about postulating what might have happened" is wrong, science does this all the time. No one was there at the beginning of the universe, yet science as come up with the the "Big Bang" theory No one has ever seen a photon change from a wave to a particle and back, yet quantum theory exists. No one was around during the formation of the solar system, yet science has come up with a theory of planet formation. No one was around for the formation of mountains and continents, yet science has come up with the Plate Tectonics theory. The funny thing is that evolution is so well detailed in the fossil record that it is actually better understood than the Big Bang and is about 100 years older.

The Theory of Evolution is not scientific dogma. At any time, new evidence could disprove it, but that's going to require some serious scientific discussion and peer reviewed articles, not a couple of armchair scientists arguing on a political forum.

 

Yet you make absolute claims based upon incomplete evidence.

Every time you have argued that something is impossible. A claim of an impossibility can only be reasonably based upon complete evidence otherwise it is the speculation and conjecture that you oppose.

 

Archaeopteryx is a transitional form that has many more reptilian characteristics than avian.

 

Some relevant passages from..
15 answers to Creationist Nonsense
Scientific American
John Rennie - Editor in Chief
June 2002
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

[......]
11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.

Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.

Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved.

12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.

Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms' physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership.

Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection--for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits--and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.

13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.

Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.

Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.
[......]
​

In fact ALL species are transitional. There are no species that don't have ancestors, and none that is in it's 'final form'.
Everything is constantly evolving.. or went/is going extinct.
usfan has Not addressed my other posts either. Mainly.. anatomical vestiges.
Only Common Descent explains them.
Certainly 'immaculate creation' Fails in light of that evidence. (among much else I and others have posted)
+

 

Then why do they find modern birds lower than archaeopteryx?

 

Credible LINK?

I suggest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_birds
Modern birds do Not pre-date dinosaurs. (be it archaeopteryx or others instead)

and I might mention once again..
It's difficult to even see your frivolous one line posts, as they are All Dwarfed by your 5 line/double spaced signature.

And perish the thought: you might even want to respond to my post above and show off your 'knowledge', rather than ignore the haymakers in favor of nit-picking.

 

Is this considered a credible link?

https://evolution-institute.org/article/new-bird-was-older-than-archeopteryx/

Is this guy who is saying that birds didnt evolved from dinosaurs credible?

https://answersingenesis.org/dinosa...-not-evolve-from-dinosaurs-say-evolutionists/

 

Yes, I know that. That's why I DID say "(be it archaeopteryx or others instead)"
So dinosaurs DO remain PRE-"modern Bird."
Ooops!

Maybe but..
That's why I Also DID Say "Credible LINK?"
Answers-In-GENESIS/Cyst or other Stupid apologetics "creation science" sites are Not credible.
But even if birds "Evolved alongside dinosaurs" as they allege, it does NOT refute nor contradict Evolution, only tweaks one string withIN it.
The scientist are simply alleging a different path OF.... evolution.
Evo you deny.

Game Over.
+