Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!

[Right Divider]

I think evolution going forward is in no way challenged by general principle of entropy.

What you think is irrelevant.

I comprehend that fully and have high confidence.

Your confidence is misplaced.

Abiogenesis, even for a single celled life form does not sit as well for me.

As well it shouldn't, since it is scientificically impossible.

It would be easier if we saw protocells generate before our eyes,

What in the world is a "protocell"? Another figment of a vivid imagination it seems.

but the bottom line is the environment on earth is drastically different

You have no idea what the "environment on earth" was in your fanciful evolutionary world.

and we have to extrapolate and discover what conditions must be in place for protocells to be prevalent.

This wild-eyed "extrapolation" has nothing to do with "discovery". It's just fairy tale stuff.

You are authentic .... an authentic dolt.

Not so. But I would expect just such a label from a moron such as yourself.

Massive extinction of protocells balances a small number who successfully reproduced.

More fairy tales.

My theory involves a nonrandom system of natural selection.

Nonrandom means DIRECTED... what intelligence is DIRECTING your symphony?

Despite my PhD and published research.

Truth is not determined by credentials nor writing anything.

Don't try to use FALLACIES for arguments, we can spot them in an instant!

 

[Right Divider]

Sure, it is complicated and convoluted to figure out how coordination of structures could occur.

ToE advocates, like yourself, most certainly use convoluted ideas to tell your fairy tale.

But, in my estimation, it is not as problematic as the spontaneous generation of cell precursors.

Indeed, but problematic is not the word... IMPOSSIBLE is the word.

Similar questions to yours from the opposite angle present a quandary over why a designer would create inefficient and cumbersome systems when obviously more efficient designs seemingly exist.

Seemingly is the key word. You are NOT a better designer than God. But you are puffed up and arrogant.

Why is a rabbit's digestive system so unseemly?*

Once again, your arrogance is on full display.

Why is the organ of sight encumbered by a backwards design?*

This lie of evolution seems to have a life of its own. You are simply misinformed and wrong.

These things seem the result of a bottom-up process rather than a top down one.

That's because you have blinders on and can only imagine an accident leading to "design".

* using some short hand here. If anyone wants some fleshing out details I can do so.

Please do.

 

[marke]

I think evolution going forward is in no way challenged by general principle of entropy. I comprehend that fully and have high confidence. Abiogenesis, even for a single celled life form does not sit as well for me. It would be easier if we saw protocells generate before our eyes, but the bottom line is the environment on earth is drastically different and we have to extrapolate and discover what conditions must be in place for protocells to be prevalent.


You are authentic .... an authentic dolt.


Massive extinction of protocells balances a small number who successfully reproduced.

My theory involves a nonrandom system of natural selection.

Despite my PhD and published research.

Devotion to the newly devised theory of evolution was early prompted by those who enjoyed Darwin's racist view of blacks and 'underdeveloped savages.'

 

[marke]

Sure, it is complicated and convoluted to figure out how coordination of structures could occur. But, in my estimation, it is not as problematic as the spontaneous generation of cell precursors.

Similar questions to yours from the opposite angle present a quandary over why a designer would create inefficient and cumbersome systems when obviously more efficient designs seemingly exist.

Why is a rabbit's digestive system so unseemly?* Why is the organ of sight encumbered by a backwards design?* These things seem the result of a bottom-up process rather than a top down one.

* using some short hand here. If anyone wants some fleshing out details I can do so.

Why did leading evolutionists claim in conjunction with the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 that the human body has 180 vestigial organs? Easy. They were unlearned and uninformed, like all evolution supporters.

 

[Skeeter]

This explains the idea. There are basically 3 changes that make Lenski's cit+ bacteria. This creates a subset within the DNA. The bottom line being, cit+ bacteria are less fit outside the experimental conditions because it didn't make new citrate processing machinery, it broke existing machinery to take advantage of the experimental conditions.

I do not see what your commentary has to do with the main intent of the study. Here, the study looked at whether an earlier study that claimed to witness a speciation event involving bacteria was sound in its conclusions. This study saw similar adaptation over a shorter period. The first was 15 years. Adaptation occurred in both studies. They differed on whether to consider the adaptation a point of speciation. Please see my comment to Clete regarding slavery.

 

[Right Divider]

I do not see what your commentary has to do with the main intent of the study. Here, the study looked at whether an earlier study that claimed to witness a speciation event involving bacteria was sound in its conclusions. This study saw similar adaptation over a shorter period. The first was 15 years. Adaptation occurred in both studies. They differed on whether to consider the adaptation a point of speciation. Please see my comment to Clete regarding slavery.

Natural selection can only select that which already exists. Adaptation is also based on what already exists. None of that helps you support GtY evolution.

"Speciation" is a vague term, as is "species".

 

[marke]

Natural selection can only select that which already exists. Adaption is also based on what already exists. None of that helps you support GtY evolution.

"Speciation" is a vague term, as is "species".

Wikipedia once had a subject titled "The Species Problem." The subject in that article was so offensive to evolutionists that Wikipedia took the subject down and rewrote some of the material under a new heading:

Species concept - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Some statements are slightly altered from the old "Species Problem" article and incorporated into the text of this newly titled article discussing the same old problem evolutionists still face, which is the "Species Problem."

The species problem is the set of questions that arises when biologists attempt to define what a species is. Such a definition is called a species concept; there are at least 26 recognized species concepts.

Many approaches to the species problem have attempted to develop one single common conception of what species are and of how they should be identified. It is thought that, if such a monistic description of species could be developed and agreed upon, then the species problem would be solved. In contrast, some authors have argued for pluralism, claiming that biologists cannot have just one shared concept of species, and that they should accept multiple, seemingly incompatible ideas about species.[50][51][52][53] David Hull however argued that pluralist proposals were unlikely to actually solve the species problem.[29]

 

[Skeeter]

No! There has never been a single scintilla of anything that is evolution that has ever been observed - PERIOD!

Wrong. Your pompous conclusionary declarations mean nothing. It cannot be said that Speciation has been clearly observed in the lab, but evolution involving a clear adaptation to the environment that is not directed by intelligence per se has been observed in the lab and documented in the field.

I don't care how many YouTube videos claim otherwise. I don't care how many different strains of Sal-manila bacterium you can get to replicate, I don't care how many "variants" of a virus you want to point at. It IS NOT evolution. There has never been any bacterium change into something that isn't a bacterium. There has never been any virus that turned into something that isn't a virus. The definitions of words like "species" are as flimsy and flexible as bungee cords but there hasn't ever been a 'kind' that has ever turned into a different 'kind'.

There are those who say that the Civil War was not caused by slavery. They say that we cannot confirm or deny whether slaves liked their lot in life because no slaves can be asked about it now. Of course both contentions are preposterous. Inference is a powerful tool in history and science. Inference draws conclusions by indirect evidence. A convergence of indirect evidence is in many circumstances more compelling than direct evidence that is not corroborated.

You emphatically declare evolution without a designer is impossible because we cannot see speciation in the lab. We do not need to see it in a lab to be confident in our conclusions. You are in the same position as a slavery apologist trying to weaken the case against you using false criticism and slippery logic. You need to demonstrate the existence of a designer. The fossil record should show some evidence of one. A watch designer is evidenced by a record of the mechanism whereby the watch was made, tools, materials, habitations of the designer, and bones of the designer (or other structures) in graves or elsewhere. The watch itself is not good enough evidence especially if there are demonstrable mechanisms by which it would be formed without a designer.

Pointing to a designer is no explanation at all because by doing so you push us into a conundrum of infinite regress. Who made the designer? Invocation of the supernatural with no evidence at that point is no better than invoking it at the outset. You might have just said humans jumped out of the dirt by supernatural forces we can never understand.

Stop your smug conclusionary stance and present some evidence.

 

[Skeeter]

Natural selection can only select that which already exists. Adaption is also based on what already exists.

This is true at a simplistic level. But across the span of time and space we can have a different vision. Please keep in mind individuals do not evolve, populations do.

None of that helps you support GtY evolution.

It is entirely consistent with it.

"Speciation" is a vague term, as is "species".

It is a helpful construct because related creatures come to a point where they can no longer reproduce or they can reproduce but their offspring are infertile.

 

[Right Divider]

Wrong. Your pompous conclusionary declarations mean nothing. It cannot be said that Speciation has been clearly observed in the lab, but evolution involving a clear adaptation to the environment that is not directed by intelligence per se has been observed in the lab and documented in the field.

Speaking of pompous declarations!

Speciation is NOT evolution in the GtY sense (i.e., YOUR theory). Speciation is a branching out of already existing kinds of creature (and plants). It is NOT an "upward and onward" path to NEW types of creatures.

You emphatically declare evolution without a designer is impossible because we cannot see speciation in the lab.

Life clearly shows design at every turn and yet many, like you, think that you can explain design without a designer. That is clearly delusional.

You need to demonstrate the existence of a designer.

The existence of the Designer is intuitively obvious from the design that we see all around us. Only blindness and stubbornness can account for ignoring it.

The fossil record should show some evidence of one.

The fossil record is clear evidence of a global catastrophe that buried vast numbers of plants and animals in a short period of time.

A watch designer is evidenced by a record of the mechanism whereby the watch was made, tools, materials, habitations of the designer, and bones of the designer (or other structures) in graves or elsewhere. The watch itself is not good enough evidence especially if there are demonstrable mechanisms by which it would be formed without a designer.

Hugely laughable!

Pointing to a designer is no explanation at all because by doing so you push us into a conundrum of infinite regress.

Nonsense. The Creator does not need a cause. He is the FIRST cause.

Who made the designer?

Supra.

Invocation of the supernatural with no evidence at that point is no better than invoking it at the outset.

That you are BLIND to the evidence does not relieve you of your duty.

You might have just said humans jumped out of the dirt by supernatural forces we can never understand.

But we can understand... except for people like you, of course.

Stop your smug conclusionary stance and present some evidence.

 

[Right Divider]

This is true at a simplistic level.

No, it's true at all levels.

But across the span of time and space we can have a different vision.

A completely imaginary one.

Please keep in mind individuals do not evolve, populations do.

Populations are made of individuals. If individuals "do not evolve", then neither do groups.

You'd better return that PhD and get a refund.

It is entirely consistent with it.

A false claim.

It is a helpful construct because related creatures come to a point where they can no longer reproduce or they can reproduce but their offspring are infertile.

That does nothing to help GtY.

 

[marke]

Wrong. Your pompous conclusionary declarations mean nothing. It cannot be said that Speciation has been clearly observed in the lab, but evolution involving a clear adaptation to the environment that is not directed by intelligence per se has been observed in the lab and documented in the field.

There are those who say that the Civil War was not caused by slavery. They say that we cannot confirm or deny whether slaves liked their lot in life because no slaves can be asked about it now. Of course both contentions are preposterous. Inference is a powerful tool in history and science. Inference draws conclusions by indirect evidence. A convergence of indirect evidence is in many circumstances more compelling than direct evidence that is not corroborated.

You emphatically declare evolution without a designer is impossible because we cannot see speciation in the lab. We do not need to see it in a lab to be confident in our conclusions. You are in the same position as a slavery apologist trying to weaken the case against you using false criticism and slippery logic. You need to demonstrate the existence of a designer. The fossil record should show some evidence of one. A watch designer is evidenced by a record of the mechanism whereby the watch was made, tools, materials, habitations of the designer, and bones of the designer (or other structures) in graves or elsewhere. The watch itself is not good enough evidence especially if there are demonstrable mechanisms by which it would be formed without a designer.

Pointing to a designer is no explanation at all because by doing so you push us into a conundrum of infinite regress. Who made the designer? Invocation of the supernatural with no evidence at that point is no better than invoking it at the outset. You might have just said humans jumped out of the dirt by supernatural forces we can never understand.

Stop your smug conclusionary stance and present some evidence.

For evolutionary development from a single-celled creature to a creature like a human being, there must have been millions of genetic bits of information added to the genetic makeup or genetic code along the way, but nobody can give evidence that millions of bits of new information could have been added to the DNA of early 'simple-celled' creatures to pave the way for the development of more advanced creatures. Where did that information come from, aliens?

Evolution is a myth unless the human thinking process can be proven to have had its origin in the brains of ignorant animals that evolutionists worship as their supposed ancestors.

 

[Skeeter]

Population are made of individual. If individuals " do not evolve", then neither do groups.

This is a flaw in your cognitive functioning. You have real trouble seeing reality on a continuous scale, preferring dichotomous or categorical vision. You should love the concept of species actually. It is a helpful concept, but in actuality all living things exist on a continuum. An Individual member of a species does not evolve, the relative number of individuals in a population with a particular trait is what changes. Sometimes this involves a mutation. When there is an adaptive advantage to a trait in a small number of individuals can become the trait of the majority of future members. You know this.

 

[Right Divider]

This is a flaw in your cognitive functioning.

Nope.

You have real trouble seeing reality on a continuous scale, preferring dichotomous or categorical vision.

Blah, blah blah....

You should love the concept of species actually.

The "concept of species" is irrelevant. It is simply a man-made construct, as are other classifications. They are valuable only up to a point. They do nothing to help your GtY theory.

It is a helpful concept, but in actuality all living things exist on a continuum.

Only in your tiny little evolutionist mind.

An Individual member of a species does not evolve, the relative number of individuals in a population with a particular trait is what changes.

So a bunch of individuals must change.... got it.

Sometimes this involves a mutation.

Do you have some OTHER type of random change? Note AGAIN, that the thing that mutates ALREADY EXISTS. Mutation are NOT a creative force. Mutations are DAMAGE to existing information.

When there is an adaptive advantage to a trait in a small number of individuals can become the trait of the majority of future members.

Damage (i.e., mutations) never leads to NEW INFORMATION. Adaptation is built into creatures from the beginning (i.e., they were created that way).

You now this.

I know that you are using nothing but bluff and bluster, just like all GtY advocates.

 

[Skeeter]

So a bunch of individuals must change.... got it.

Inter-individual change versus intra-individual change, right?

Do you have some OTHER type of random change? Note AGAIN, that the thing that mutates ALREADY EXISTS. Mutation are NOT a creative force. Mutations are DAMAGE to existing information.

Mutations increase the variability in the population. They can be neutral, beneficial, or harmful - as we already agreed.

Damage (i.e., mutations) never leads to NEW INFORMATION. Adaptation is built into creatures from the beginning (i.e., they were created that way).

Most mutations DO NOT result in damage. Most are relatively neutral. Some are neutral and become beneficial due to coincidental environmental change. A series of mutations can result in significant structural change. It is not new per se, but it contrasts to a great degree with an earlier form. This can appear novel. It can look novel in the fossil record when intermediate forms are short lived. Newness is relative and a matter of perspective.

 

[Right Divider]

Inter-individual change versus intra-individual change, right?

If individuals never change, then their group does not change either.

Mutations increase the variability in the population. They can be neutral, beneficial, or harmful - as we already agreed.

Even supposedly "beneficial" mutations damage the integrity of the information that they affect.

Most mutations DO NOT result in damage.

That is simply not true. ALL mutations corrupt existing information.

Most are relatively neutral.

Many do not destroy the creature outright.

Some are neutral and become beneficial due to coincidental environmental change.

Once again, the "benefit" is always outweighed by the overall damage to existing information.

A serious of mutations can result in significant structural change.

Always eventually leading downhill.

It is not new per se, but it contrasts to a great degree with an earlier form.

No, it is not NEW in the sense of real information.

This can appear novel.

Appearances can be deceiving.

It can look novel in the fossil record when intermediate forms are short lived.

The fossil record was created in a very short time. Not over supposed "millions of years".

Newness is relative and a matter of perspective.

Funny.

 

[Skeeter]

If individuals never change, then their group does not change either.

So, you cannot comprehend the distinction?

Even supposedly "beneficial" mutations damage the integrity of the information that they affect.

Nope. You are adding value-laden judgment unnecessarily.

That is simply not true. ALL mutations corrupt existing information.

They just change it. Corrupt is your judgment.

Once again, the "benefit" is always outweighed by the overall damage to existing information.

Not hardly.

Always eventually leading downhill.

Sometimes. Sometimes not.

No, it is not NEW in the sense of real information.

Every mutation opens the system to receive new information.

The fossil record was created in a very short time. Not over supposed "millions of years".

Because you say so? Start a thread on that.

Funny.

Funny Looking!

 

[Right Divider]

So, you cannot comprehend the distinction?

I clearly understand the distinction, unlike you.

Nope. You are adding value-laden judgment unnecessarily.

Mutations are damage... plain and simple.

They just change it. Corrupt is your judgment.

It is a reasoned judgment.

Not hardly.

Go ahead and prove otherwise.

Sometimes. Sometimes not.

Go ahead and prove otherwise.

Every mutation opens the system to receive new information.

So totally false that it's hilarious that you believe it.

Because you say so? Start a thread on that.

Not because I say so... because it's a fact.

Funny Looking!

Childish... but then again, you're an evolutionist.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Despite my PhD and published research.

People can be educated and still be wrong. And stupid.

 

[marke]

This is a flaw in your cognitive functioning. You have real trouble seeing reality on a continuous scale, preferring dichotomous or categorical vision. You should love the concept of species actually. It is a helpful concept, but in actuality all living things exist on a continuum. An Individual member of a species does not evolve, the relative number of individuals in a population with a particular trait is what changes. Sometimes this involves a mutation. When there is an adaptive advantage to a trait in a small number of individuals can become the trait of the majority of future members. You know this.

Darwin may have written a book about the Origin of the Species but he understood neither origins nor species.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2010.00311.x#:~:text=He%20doubted%20the%20existence%20of,called%20''species''.&text=Many%20have%20said%20that%20Darwin,both%20theoretically%20sound%20and%20practical.

Mystery of mysteries: Darwin and the species problem Marc Ereshefsky*

Darwin offered an intriguing answer to the species problem. He doubted the existence of the species category as a real category in
nature, but he did not doubt the existence of those taxa called ‘‘species’’. And despite his scepticism of the species category, Darwin
continued using the word ‘‘species’’. Many have said that Darwin did not understand the nature of species. Yet his answer to the
species problem is both theoretically sound and practical. On the theoretical side, Darwins answer is confirmed by contemporary
biology, and it offers a more satisfactory answer to the species problem than recent attempts to save the species category. On the
practical side, Darwins answer frees us from the search for the correct theoretical definition of ‘‘species’’. But at the same time it
does not require that we banish the word ‘‘species’’ from biology as some recent sceptics of the species category advocate.
The Willi Hennig Society 2010.

Is a zebra a member of the horse species? There really is no answer that evolutionists can all agree on.