Problems with Evolution !

[alextemplet]

And generally bad mutations can be excluded from the gene pool quite quickly.

Without autogenesis - impossible.

Would you care to explain why because I'm pretty sure he's correct?

[canalon]

A series of mistakes cannot do anything harmonic. Especially, if the way of reproduction does not allow the bad genes to be rejected.

...
And generally bad mutations can be excluded from the gene pool quite quickly.
...

Without autogenesis - impossible.

[enarees]

And generally bad mutations can be excluded from the gene pool quite quickly.

Without autogenesis - impossible.

Would you care to explain why because I'm pretty sure he's correct?

Bigenesis will collect more and more bad than good genes from "mutations".

Look what make combination of autogenesis and bigenesis:


The Adam like calabash is on front.

[canalon]

:headdesk:

And please pray tell us what is the link between calabash and autogenesis?

[enarees]

:headdesk:

And please pray tell us what is the link between calabash and autogenesis?

All calabashes on photo are from one parent.

[canalon]

And please pray tell us what is the link between calabash and autogenesis?

All calabashes on photo are from one parent.

And?

Variation in phenotype is not uncommon in plants. Even more so when it comes to the fruiting bodies.
But I still do not see what would be the link between phenotypical variety and autogenesis.

[enarees]

And?

Variation in phenotype is not uncommon in plants. Even more so when it comes to the fruiting bodies.
But I still do not see what would be the link between phenotypical variety and autogenesis.

This is not variation in phenotipe.

The different calabashes on photo have too different genes.
We have genetic extractions, because of repeated autogenesis of hybrid plant.

Evolution/creation is chemistry on macro level.

[mith]

This sorry, I don't understand your argument.

[bebaloo19]

To the question of whether Evolution has flaws, it does. That is why it is not a law. One of the flaws is that it has no solid proof. there are giant gaps in the evolutionary chart. The more we discover fossils and different species on the planet earth the more evolution or Macro evolution (evolution from one species to another ex: snake to a bird) is discredited. I do believe in natural selection however. There are many cases today that animals adapt to there enviroment to survive. These changes are not extreme but small. An example is something Darwin used to try to prove evolution. The Galapagos finches. They are a good example of how animals adapt but not evolution. The finches of the Galapagos Islands have different sizes and shapes in beaks. When something changed in the enviroment like less food, the birds beak size or shape would change. The Birds with bigger beaks would survive to have ospering. that meant that the beak size would get bigger. When first studied back then it looked convincingly like evolution. The problem with having this as proof is that once the conditions went back to normal the bird's beak would also change back to normal sizes. There has never been a real and proven case of Macro evolution! If you want answers look around and study many sides unbiased. If you have any bias your search will be flawed and you will not find the truth of the matter. Follow the evidence not the opinion.

[Darwin420]

"The Galapagos finches. They are a good example of how animals adapt but not evolution. The finches of the Galapagos Islands have different sizes and shapes in beaks. When something changed in the enviroment like less food, the birds beak size or shape would change. The Birds with bigger beaks would survive to have ospering. that meant that the beak size would get bigger. When first studied back then it looked convincingly like evolution. The problem with having this as proof is that once the conditions went back to normal the bird's beak would also change back to normal sizes."

Ok, before I start. You say that the more we explore the fossil record and discover different species the more evolution is discredited. WRONG, one of the initial leading evidence for evolution was discovered through the fossil record. However, at that time, Cuvier who studied it had a different explanation for why species changed through out time - he explained it by saying it was the Noah's flood that dispersed the species. But getting back to that, the fossil record shows that species have changed through out time, if you look at the fossil record you will see and a trend, there are more simplistic organisms as deeper you go in the record and more complex organisms the higher you go up in the record. If evolution didn't not cause this transition, than what did? Got any better ideas?

Also, if you say evolution has it flaws (which I agree), it does. Going on evidence I believe evolution exists, but there are mechanisms that we are missing. However, you believe in natural selection but not evolution, but how does that work? Natural selection is a process that leads to evolution.

Let's use an example, let's say we have a population in a given environment. Let's say we have have two type individuals in a population (in this case let's say the organism is a bird). Certain individuals in a population (referred to as species A) are birds that have large fat deposits, while the other individuals (referred to as species B) have hardly any fat deposits. Now let's say the environment changes, it gets really cold and the food supply for the birds are wiped out. You will see a directional change, species B will be wiped out because they lack the fat deposits, thus, cannot survive a long period of time without food. While species A will most likely survive until the drought is over, due to the fat depositss. Therefore, the alleles of spcies A will be passed on to the next generation where you will see that the POPULATION EVOLVED. Now this population will consist mainly if not all of species A.

Even with the example you gave the example about the Galapos finches, that is still evolution, even if they reverted back to the initial beak size, the population is still changing adapting and evolving in relation to it's environment.

But I do agree that there are its flaws, such as, is evolution really random? I have studied this discipline a lot, and I agree that a lot of the stuff I studied I can explain by randomness, but how do explain organisms such as insects that can almost flawlessy mimmick their surroundings (such as a leaf or a stick), seems a little hard to believe that it is completely random, BUT, in regards to the theory of evolution it has been going on for billions of years, so that is a lot of time for selection to occur.

I know however, Lamarcks ideas have been pretty much pushed away by scientists, especially his giraffe ideas. But how do you explain things like Cairns findings?

[stereologist]

I see a clear distinction between evolution and the mechanism that causes it. Evolution is the observation. We see related animals and plants. We see the evidence of extinct forms.

The mechanism generally supported today is Darwinism. Evolution is a reality that is well documented. The debatable part is how it came to be.

So problems with evolution should really be problems with Darwinism. I think everyone here understands that. I just wanted to be state the obvious, because sometimes it is important to state it. I for one have been in groups where no one other than me sees evolution.

For instance, I state, "I've seen enormous rock layers full of animal remains and not a single fish fossil. Clearly, there were huge seas at one time with no fish in them. Where did fish come from? There must have been evolution." The responses can vary. "You didn't look hard enough." "The rocks were not from a huge sea." "Fossils are not the remains of ancient life."

Anyways, thanks for the interesting comments on autogenesis.

[AFJ]

Who ever says mutations are a mistake? If there's no mutation, there's no genetic variation, and thus zero ability to adapt to a changing environment. Viruses are a prime example. If they didn't mutate, they'd go extinct as soon as a single drug was developed to kill them. Yet they're still here, because of their ability to mutate. In my opinion, that's a survival strategy, not a mistake.

Not true, there is genetic variation in cross breeding of dogs. But they are a family of animals. Try to breed them with cats who are in the same order--carnivores.
First there is an instinct within fauna to stay within their family or a similar species. Second, contrary to what evolutionists want to believe, there are observed
current genetic boundaries--you can't cross a bat with a worm. Evolution tries to explain this fact away with exaggerated speciation--which basically says the
animals mutated, isolated from each other, mutated again, isolated, and so forth.

What they are in fact doing is trying to disprove a scientific observation with an unobserved hypothesis. What makes me sick is that everyone buys it! I believe in
speciation within families of fauna and flora, but I also believe that there are genetic boundaries that have never been crossed nor will ever be crossed, as evolution
teaches. The speciation that evolution has NEVER been observed--it is a hypothesis. Speciation within species and families of organisms can be observed today.

As for mutation, what mutation can add information to the genome and bring out a better product. Go to Utube and look up Richard Dawkins stumped by creationist
question. He goes into a whole other to explanation in order to cover up the fact that he can't find one OBSERVED mutation that adds information to the genome.
Then on Utube there is a rebuttal from an evolutionist saying that DOWN'S SYNDROME is an example of a mutation that adds information to the genome!! Not a good
argument for upward evolution I would say!!