Login

Join for Free!
118299 members


Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.

Moderator: BioTeam

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby christianstrategies » Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:36 pm

sachin wrote:Dear christianstrategies,

christianstrategies
Logical reasoning of Darwinism or Koran is not enough to be truth. coherency with reality is required instead, and, sometimes, the truth (=coherency with reality) doesn't match with a given logical reasoning.


I found this thread gathering inter religious comments. Also I find no logic in arguing on this topic with person obsessed with religious values. The discussion can not be healthy enough any further when people starts thinking illogically by giving weightage to one side.


OK, no further mention of Koran, not relevant in this forum...
author (source): christianstrategies
christianstrategies
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:33 am

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby JackBean » Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:40 pm

christianstrategies wrote:OK, no further mention of Koran, not relevant in this forum...

yeah, like if Bible would be :roll:

Why don't you comment the Lenski's experiment? You're obviously updated with the neutrinos, but you ignore much older research... One might ask why is that?
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5678
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Re: Re:

Postby christianstrategies » Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:57 pm

AstraSequi wrote:Just a few relevant points.

christianstrategies wrote:begin creating a virus from the dust spontaneously...

This is not a logical criterion; if we "begin creating" something, then by definition, it will not have happened "spontaneously." Could you please clarify?


Yes: (continuous) evolutionism assumes life appeared from inorganic matter, spontaneously (or through electrical storms, it doesn't really matter), mutation by mutation... an experience thus to be repeated in a lab, to create "spontaneously" life from the dust...

Note: it is already possible to synthethise virus through the une of genetical engineering... but it is not a task of the hasard, but rather a task of high intelligences (God, a computer scientist or, his cousin, the geneticist).

AstraSequi wrote:Similarly - by "dust," do you mean "inorganic matter"? If you want to ask for evidence for something, you have to be specific about what you will actually consider to be evidence.


By dust, I mean, fertile ground, clay, in small particules... yes, it is inorganic matter... Adam was created from the dust, and when we die, we become dust, fertile ground...

AstraSequi wrote:
christianstrategies wrote: Do your grand sons acquire new serious mutations (6 fingers in place of five etc)?

...Yes? It's called polydactyly, and it happens in about 1 in 500 live births.

New mutations arise in every person of every generation. I think the average is about seven for each of us.


I don't mean normal mutations, which are the result of the mix of the cromossoms of the father with those of the biological mother (taller, changes of race, color of eyes...). I speak about serious mutations (6 fingers in place of five...). Even if it appears, it is quite rare and it doesn't goes from father to son until it creates a new specie: not in the case of the 6 fingers, as far as I Know... Aristotle had 5 fingers and we keep having 5 fingers, isn't it?

Since the times of Noah, there were no serious mutations... they were men like we are, only they had less knowledge... you can check it yourself with your grand parents or grand children... no, they're not become Extraterrestrials... unless they have sex with animals (monkeys?)... like it happened before the flood (the hominids...)

AstraSequi wrote:
So, the microbe mutations rate per generation are even higher than by humans...

Again, yes. You can look this up for yourself. Humans are far better at protecting and repairing our DNA than most microbes. Compared to the AIDS virus, the difference is about 1000-fold.
[/quote]

One more reason not to believe men evolve into a new specie after each 30.000 generations (=750.000 years to human or 10 years to a virus...)
author (source): christianstrategies
christianstrategies
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:33 am


Re: Re:

Postby JackBean » Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:07 pm

christianstrategies wrote:I don't mean normal mutations, which are the result of the mix of the cromossoms of the father with those of the biological mother (taller, changes of race, color of eyes...). I speak about serious mutations (6 fingers in place of five...). Even if it appears, it is quite rare and it doesn't goes from father to son until it creates a new specie: not in the case of the 6 fingers, as far as I Know... Aristotle had 5 fingers and we keep having 5 fingers, isn't it?

Since the times of Noah, there were no serious mutations... they were men like we are, only they had less knowledge... you can check it yourself with your grand parents or grand children... no, they're not become Extraterrestrials... unless they have sex with animals (monkeys?)... like it happened before the flood (the hominids...)

Mix of parental chromosomes is not a mutation. What was Astri talking about is a mutation.
Passage from parent to offspring is not related to speciation.
http://www.biolib.cz/en/main/

Cis or trans? That's what matters.
User avatar
JackBean
Inland Taipan
Inland Taipan
 
Posts: 5678
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:12 pm

Re: Re:

Postby AstraSequi » Mon Feb 06, 2012 9:08 pm

christianstrategies wrote:Yes: (continuous) evolutionism assumes life appeared from inorganic matter, spontaneously (or through electrical storms, it doesn't really matter), mutation by mutation... an experience thus to be repeated in a lab, to create "spontaneously" life from the dust...

I still don't think this makes sense. If we try to repeat something in the lab, it will not have happened spontaneously. Similarly, are you saying that if something has not occurred today, then it is impossible for it to occur in the future?

What specific experiment or experiments would convince you? That's what I mean when I ask for standards of evidence.

Also, what do you mean by "(continuous) evolutionism"? The appearance of life at some time point is an inference from our knowledge of evolution - because life was once much simpler than it was today, and even simpler the further back in time you go, that implies that there was probably a starting point.


AstraSequi wrote:Similarly - by "dust," do you mean "inorganic matter"? If you want to ask for evidence for something, you have to be specific about what you will actually consider to be evidence.


By dust, I mean, fertile ground, clay, in small particules... yes, it is inorganic matter... Adam was created from the dust, and when we die, we become dust, fertile ground...

That also is contradictory. If land is fertile, it contains huge amounts of bacteria. Similarly, decomposition to "become fertile ground" does not happen without huge amounts of bacteria.

That is to say, "inorganic matter" and "fertile ground" are not the same thing. You cannot define "dust" to be the same thing as both.


I don't mean normal mutations, which are the result of the mix of the cromossoms of the father with those of the biological mother (taller, changes of race, color of eyes...). I speak about serious mutations (6 fingers in place of five...). Even if it appears, it is quite rare and it doesn't goes from father to son until it creates a new specie: not in the case of the 6 fingers, as far as I Know... Aristotle had 5 fingers and we keep having 5 fingers, isn't it?

I still don't understand. I think you need to specify what you mean by a "serious mutation," for example. (Otherwise, the qualifier "serious" is inviting the No True Scotsman fallacy to be made. The word "mutation" has a standard definition, but not "serious mutation.") And as Jack pointed out, chromosome mixing is not mutation.

Are you saying that the overall morphology of humans has not changed since the time of Aristotle, and that therefore it is impossible for any change to happen at all in any time frame? That's the argument that I think you seem to be using.


One more reason not to believe men evolve into a new specie after each 30.000 generations (=750.000 years to human or 10 years to a virus...)

I apologize - I think I misunderstood you. But then I think I still am - because, are you saying that humans have not changed into a new species in 30,000 generations, therefore it is impossible for any change to happen at all in any time frame?
AstraSequi
Coral
Coral
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:14 am

Re: Re:

Postby sachin » Tue Feb 07, 2012 4:08 am

AstraSequi wrote:
christianstrategies wrote:I don't mean normal mutations, which are the result of the mix of the cromossoms of the father with those of the biological mother (taller, changes of race, color of eyes...). I speak about serious mutations (6 fingers in place of five...). Even if it appears, it is quite rare and it doesn't goes from father to son until it creates a new specie: not in the case of the 6 fingers, as far as I Know... Aristotle had 5 fingers and we keep having 5 fingers, isn't it?

I still don't understand. I think you need to specify what you mean by a "serious mutation," for example. (Otherwise, the qualifier "serious" is inviting the No True Scotsman fallacy to be made. The word "mutation" has a standard definition, but not "serious mutation.") And as Jack pointed out, chromosome mixing is not mutation.


Ya, there is nothing like "Normal Mutation" and "Serious Mutation". At the most we can say "Repairable", "Un repairable" and "Lethal" Mutations. 6 finger mutation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyly) or chromosomal aberration called Polydactyly. In the process of speciation the mutations or variations are favoured if it suits the environment, else mostly these are repaired if repairable. If not repairable and not suitable the organism automatically gets deselected in nature.

Yes some of my grand relatives had such mutations but they got deselected by nature and obvious human behavior.
How? Just think what will happen to the polydactyly genes in a person if he doesn't get married just because of his weirdness which has no advantage.

But if mutation provides one the extra intelligence or physical strength the person has high chances to get selected in nature and transfers genes to next generation. Now this type of speciation can not be realized.

Human body is at such level of perfection according to human's need that further mutations like complete lifelong baldness and 4 finger in hand will develop and give rise to new species (May be a species). But ofcourse it will take time, as today say if your progeny has dominant gene mutation (not Polygenic inheritance) for 4 fingers in hand it may get transferred to next generation only if
"He gets chance to marry, though he is weird". :?
Senior Education Officer, BNHS, India. www.bnhs.org

Bitter Truth!
Who says reason for world war IV will be Petrol?
Reason lies in two words "Me and Mine".
User avatar
sachin
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: MUMBAI / INDIA

Re: Re:

Postby christianstrategies » Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:45 pm

JackBean wrote:
christianstrategies wrote:I don't mean normal mutations, which are the result of the mix of the cromossoms of the father with those of the biological mother (taller, changes of race, color of eyes...). I speak about serious mutations (6 fingers in place of five...). Even if it appears, it is quite rare and it doesn't goes from father to son until it creates a new specie: not in the case of the 6 fingers, as far as I Know... Aristotle had 5 fingers and we keep having 5 fingers, isn't it?

Since the times of Noah, there were no serious mutations... they were men like we are, only they had less knowledge... you can check it yourself with your grand parents or grand children... no, they're not become Extraterrestrials... unless they have sex with animals (monkeys?)... like it happened before the flood (the hominids...)

Mix of parental chromosomes is not a mutation. What was Astri talking about is a mutation.
Passage from parent to offspring is not related to speciation.


Anyhow, I'm not talking about the mix of chromosoms from the parents, but in mutations. Thanks for the correction.
author (source): christianstrategies
christianstrategies
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:33 am

Re: Any SOLID arguments against evolution?

Postby christianstrategies » Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:54 pm

JackBean wrote:
christianstrategies wrote:OK, no further mention of Koran, not relevant in this forum...

yeah, like if Bible would be :roll:

Why don't you comment the Lenski's experiment? You're obviously updated with the neutrinos, but you ignore much older research... One might ask why is that?


1. What I mean is that all mutant microbes has to change of specie after 30.000 generations.
2. the concept of mutation or serious mutation is quite ambiguous, as we have seen: rather, it is pure convention: it could include the mix of parental chromosoms, but it seems not... pure convention... in the same way, I could qualify the blond daughter of the black race couple in Africa as change of specie...because the physical features changed a lot... but it is not a change of specie, as we know... scientifics have here an important margin of ambiguity, here. But the most important: all mutant microbes have to change of specie after 30.000 generations, because men are able to do it, and with a lot less mutations per generation, isn't it? Kind regards.
author (source): christianstrategies
christianstrategies
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:33 am

Re: Re:

Postby christianstrategies » Tue Feb 07, 2012 4:20 pm

AstraSequi wrote:I still don't think this makes sense. If we try to repeat something in the lab, it will not have happened spontaneously. Similarly, are you saying that if something has not occurred today, then it is impossible for it to occur in the future?


I mean: the spontaneous apparition of biological life never happened in the nature: Everything was created by God: that's why such experience is impossible to be created in a lab... what happened was something completely different, and that is already possible to repeat in a lab: the creation of a synthetic virus or a synthetinc living being, if a superior intelligence, God or a geneticist has the correct genom...

AstraSequi wrote:What specific experiment or experiments would convince you? That's what I mean when I ask for standards of evidence.


1) To make evolve in a lab (e.g. a ground completely desinfected of life), spontaneously a simple form of life: it can be even used a completely desinfected lake, with complete absence of life and a lot of electrical storms, to try to create the first form of life... this event should be repeatable in order to give coherence to (continuous) evolutionism...

2) to make evolve in a lab an australopythecus into a modern man, spontaneously, hasardously: OK, this is impossible to do, "it takes too much time": so, it is completely non proofed and coherency with reality can not be tested...

AstraSequi wrote:Also, what do you mean by "(continuous) evolutionism"? The appearance of life at some time point is an inference from our knowledge of evolution - because life was once much simpler than it was today, and even simpler the further back in time you go, that implies that there was probably a starting point.


1.
Continuously evolutionism= classic darwinism
discrete evolutionism= God's creation. There's familiarity among species, but that doesn't mean one specie derived from the other, mutation by mutation. Rather, both were created by God, ~6.000 years ago, in a way the geneticist/computer scientist makes evolve computer programs: they're derived, but by "important jumps": e.g. win Xp, win 7...

2. "Life was once much simpler": No, dates are completely wrong. Maybe there's a difference of a few days in time, that's all (man was created in the 6th day, and microbes were created a few days before) Please refer to the posts of page 19 and 20, following my post "CONCERNING DATES AND EVOLUTION".
author (source): christianstrategies
christianstrategies
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:33 am

Re: Re:

Postby christianstrategies » Tue Feb 07, 2012 4:47 pm

AstraSequi wrote:Similarly - by "dust," do you mean "inorganic matter"? If you want to ask for evidence for something, you have to be specific about what you will actually consider to be evidence.


By dust, I mean, fertile ground, clay, in small particules... yes, it is inorganic matter... Adam was created from the dust, and when we die, we become dust, fertile ground...


AstraSequi wrote: That also is contradictory. If land is fertile, it contains huge amounts of bacteria. Similarly, decomposition to "become fertile ground" does not happen without huge amounts of bacteria.

That is to say, "inorganic matter" and "fertile ground" are not the same thing. You cannot define "dust" to be the same thing as both.


You you have problems, you "disinfect" the fertile ground, and there's no bacteria anymore. Anyhow, dust of the ground may be small particules of fertile ground (disinfected, for this purpose) or small particules of clay...

I don't mean normal mutations, which are the result of the mix of the cromossoms of the father with those of the biological mother (taller, changes of race, color of eyes...). I speak about serious mutations (6 fingers in place of five...). Even if it appears, it is quite rare and it doesn't goes from father to son until it creates a new specie: not in the case of the 6 fingers, as far as I Know... Aristotle had 5 fingers and we keep having 5 fingers, isn't it?


AstraSequi wrote: I still don't understand. I think you need to specify what you mean by a "serious mutation," for example. (Otherwise, the qualifier "serious" is inviting the No True Scotsman fallacy to be made. The word "mutation" has a standard definition, but not "serious mutation.") And as Jack pointed out, chromosome mixing is not mutation.


That's not relevant. Simply replace "serious mutation" by "mutation", it the context remains the same and according to the scientifical conventions.

AstraSequi wrote: Are you saying that the overall morphology of humans has not changed since the time of Aristotle, and that therefore it is impossible for any change to happen at all in any time frame? That's the argument that I think you seem to be using.


Changes of race (color of eyes, purification of race in indians of America...) or small mutations may happen, but since the times of Aristotle, Noah, or Adam, people have 5 fingers per hand and no 6 fingers hand mutation is transmitted from parents to children... I mean, mutations able to trigger a change of specie... no, they didn't happen... to see the lies of the modern intelligent man that existed since "60.000 years ago", please refer to page 19 of this forum... extraordinary mutation events may happen in modern times, like nuclear war, but even so, there's no evidence of change of specie in Hiroshima or Tchernobil...

One more reason not to believe men evolve into a new specie after each 30.000 generations (=750.000 years to human or 10 years to a virus...)

AstraSequi wrote: I apologize - I think I misunderstood you. But then I think I still am - because, are you saying that humans have not changed into a new species in 30,000 generations, therefore it is impossible for any change to happen at all in any time frame?


1. According to darwinism, men changed of specie every 30.000 generations, but mutant microbes contradict that. There's one bacteria that "seemed to change of specie", according to "conventional scientifical criteria", but all other mutant microbes didn't. And they should, because they suffer important mutations, like resistance to antibiotica. Thus, it can not be generalized, and humans have a mutation rate per generation a lot slower than mutant microbes: for men, taking to comparison the microbes, it only would be possible an hipothetical change of specie after, I would say, 100.000 even 300.000 generations = 2.000.000 to 7.000.000 years for only one change of specie! E.g. Homo Neandertal to modern man...and microbes show it: it was a very particular case and not the general case... it contradicts completely generalizations in evolutionism and evolution dates... conclusion: it was the exception and not the rule and with bigger living beings, the mutation rate decreases, which makes its viability practically impossible...

2. It is possible for men to change of specie quickly, like the mule... please refer to my comment of page 19 "Jesus explains the hominids"
author (source): christianstrategies
christianstrategies
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:33 am

Re: Re:

Postby sachin » Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:08 pm

christianstrategies wrote:1. According to darwinism, men changed of specie every 30.000 generations, but mutant microbes contradict that. There's one bacteria that "seemed to change of specie", according to "conventional scientifical criteria", but all other mutant microbes didn't. And they should, because they suffer important mutations, like resistance to antibiotica. Thus, it can not be generalized, and humans have a mutation rate per generation a lot slower than mutant microbes: for men, taking to comparison the microbes, it only would be possible an hipothetical change of specie after, I would say, 100.000 even 300.000 generations = 2.000.000 to 7.000.000 years for only one change of specie! E.g. Homo Neandertal to modern man...and microbes show it: it was a very particular case and not the general case... it contradicts completely generalizations in evolutionism and evolution dates... conclusion: it was the exception and not the rule and with bigger living beings, the mutation rate decreases, which makes its viability practically impossible...

2. It is possible for men to change of specie quickly, like the mule... please refer to my comment of page 19 "Jesus explains the hominids"


Answer for this is already over here

sachin wrote:Yes some of my grand relatives had such mutations but they got deselected by nature and obvious human behavior.
How? Just think what will happen to the polydactyly genes in a person if he doesn't get married just because of his weirdness which has no advantage.

But if mutation provides one the extra intelligence or physical strength the person has high chances to get selected in nature and transfers genes to next generation. Now this type of speciation can not be realized.

Human body is at such level of perfection according to human's need that further mutations like complete lifelong baldness and 4 finger in hand will develop and give rise to new species (May be a species). But ofcourse it will take time, as today say if your progeny has dominant gene mutation (not Polygenic inheritance) for 4 fingers in hand it may get transferred to next generation only if
"He gets chance to marry, though he is weird". :?
Senior Education Officer, BNHS, India. www.bnhs.org

Bitter Truth!
Who says reason for world war IV will be Petrol?
Reason lies in two words "Me and Mine".
User avatar
sachin
King Cobra
King Cobra
 
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:39 pm
Location: MUMBAI / INDIA

Re: Re:

Postby christianstrategies » Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:10 pm

sachin wrote:
AstraSequi wrote:
christianstrategies wrote:I don't mean normal mutations, which are the result of the mix of the cromossoms of the father with those of the biological mother (taller, changes of race, color of eyes...). I speak about serious mutations (6 fingers in place of five...). Even if it appears, it is quite rare and it doesn't goes from father to son until it creates a new specie: not in the case of the 6 fingers, as far as I Know... Aristotle had 5 fingers and we keep having 5 fingers, isn't it?

I still don't understand. I think you need to specify what you mean by a "serious mutation," for example. (Otherwise, the qualifier "serious" is inviting the No True Scotsman fallacy to be made. The word "mutation" has a standard definition, but not "serious mutation.") And as Jack pointed out, chromosome mixing is not mutation.


Ya, there is nothing like "Normal Mutation" and "Serious Mutation". At the most we can say "Repairable", "Un repairable" and "Lethal" Mutations. 6 finger mutation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyly) or chromosomal aberration called Polydactyly. In the process of speciation the mutations or variations are favoured if it suits the environment, else mostly these are repaired if repairable. If not repairable and not suitable the organism automatically gets deselected in nature.

Yes some of my grand relatives had such mutations but they got deselected by nature and obvious human behavior.
How? Just think what will happen to the polydactyly genes in a person if he doesn't get married just because of his weirdness which has no advantage.

But if mutation provides one the extra intelligence or physical strength the person has high chances to get selected in nature and transfers genes to next generation. Now this type of speciation can not be realized.

Human body is at such level of perfection according to human's need that further mutations like complete lifelong baldness and 4 finger in hand will develop and give rise to new species (May be a species). But ofcourse it will take time, as today say if your progeny has dominant gene mutation (not Polygenic inheritance) for 4 fingers in hand it may get transferred to next generation only if
"He gets chance to marry, though he is weird". :?


That only proofs what I said: since the old times of the modern man, e.g. Aristotle, Touthakamon etc., there's no serious mutations in the human specie able to trigger a change of specie...
author (source): christianstrategies
christianstrategies
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 7:33 am

PreviousNext

Return to Evolution

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest