Merged Icebear's Evolution Thread

[Crossbow]

.. snipped for relevance ...

My own response to that is to note what I view as the ultimate evolution quote by the noted evolutionist Jeffrey Dahmer:

Sooo, ...

You are willing to toss out a scientific theory which has a great deal of supporting evidence and has been considered valid for well over 100 years just because of what someone said about 19 years ago and that someone does not have the courage to face the fact that there is no God.

OK thanks! That makes perfect sense now.

 

[Psi Baba]

Basically, every halfway honest person with any brains and talent who has taken any sort of a hard look at evolution in the past 60 years has given up on it and many have denounced it.

Basically, every mostly or completely honest person with any brains and talent who has taken any sort of hard look at evolution in the past 60 years has accepted it and realized that it is a fact. If the ones who have denounced it are merely halfway honest, then the reason is self-evident.

Evolution is a dead theory walking. Nobody with brains and/or talent believes in it any more.

God is a dead concept walking. Nobody with brains and/or talent believes in it any more.

 

[Psi Baba]

Imagine a population of 100,000 strawmen . . .

 

[aggle-rithm]

You know it's ok to just be wrong in just one thread? As much as JREF loves evidence it's not necessary to prove you don't know what you're talking about THIS many times.

It's an experiment to determine how many wrongs make a right.

 

[jaydeehess]

Why assume that these protohumans start at the genetic equivalent of chimpanzees or Neanderthals?

Why assume a single homogeneous starting population?

Are we assuming this starting population all inhabited the same exact enviroment and thus the same environmental influences?

 

[MikeG]

...... in the real world, starting from apes, in ten million years the best you could possibly hope for would be an ape with a slightly shorter tail....

Dogs. Yep, canis lupus familiaris. Ever noticed what a few generations of breeding can do there? Chihuaha to St Bernard and all points between, in a couple of hundred years.

Icebear, you're out of your depth in the science forum. For your own sake, stick to the humour section. I mentioned this before.....

 

[Spindrift]

Dogs. Yep, canis lupus familiaris. Ever noticed what a few generations of breeding can do there? Chihuaha to St Bernard and all points between, in a couple of hundred years.

Icebear, you're out of your depth in the science forum. For your own sake, stick to the humour section. I mentioned this before.....

But he's not that funny. The only section most of his stuff qualifies for is AAH.

 

[dafydd]

Quote:
Imagine a population of 100,000 apes or “proto-humans” ten million years ago which are all genetically alike other than for two with a “beneficial mutation”. Imagine also that this population has the human or proto-human generation cycle time of roughly 20 years.

Imagine that the beneficial mutation in question is so good, that all 99,998 others die out immediately (from jealousy), and that, next day, the pair with the beneficial mutation has 100,000 kids and thus replenishes the herd.

Imagine that this process goes on like that for ten million years, which is more than anybody claims is involved in “human evolution”. The max number of such “beneficial mutations” which could thus be substituted into the herd would be ten million divided by twenty, or 500,000 point mutations which, Remine notes, is about 1/100 of one percent of the human genome, and a miniscule fraction of the 2 to 3 percent that separates us from chimpanzees, or the half of that which separates us from Neanderthals.



I think I've spotted the problems.

 

[Mojo]

Dogs. Yep, canis lupus familiaris. Ever noticed what a few generations of breeding can do there? Chihuaha to St Bernard and all points between, in a couple of hundred years.

How can you say that when icebear has just proved that they are all virtually identical?

 

[ThunderChunky]

The difference between humans and chimps is not limited to "beneficial mutations."

 

[DuvalHMFIC]

How can you say that when icebear has just proved that they are all virtually identical?

Not really. Some might have longer tails. Or something.

So does this mean I don't need to believe all of the hooplah about viruses that are evolving immunities to antibiotics? Good to know I can just keep taking the same medicines and I'll be fine. Stupid doctors trying to trick me.

 

[icebear]

Among your other mistakes, you're working on the false premise that only a single mutation can exist at a time.

A single BENEFICIAL mutation at a time. That's the assumption evolution works with. The vast and overwhelming bulk of all mutations are harmful or fatal or, best case, don't really do much of anything.

 

[Spindrift]

A single BENEFICIAL mutation at a time. That's the assumption evolution works with. The vast and overwhelming bulk of all mutations are harmful or fatal or, best case, don't really do much of anything.

Sorry, wrong. Please wait thirty days before trying again.

 

[Mojo]

So does this mean I don't need to believe all of the hooplah about viruses that are evolving immunities to antibiotics?

It's probably best to ignore anything that says that viruses are becoming immune to antibiotics.

 

[icebear]

Wrong, again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane's_dilemma

Wikipedia is a fabulously useful resource for any sort of a topicf for whicfh no controversy could plausibly exist; for anything else, it's totally worthless.

The Haldane dilemma:

http://saintpaulscience.com

It's one of those things which nobody can make go away by waving their hands.

 

[Ladewig]

Wrong, again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane's_dilemma

When one presents an argument so flawed that a basic Wikipedia page can illustrate that the logic was fatally flawed, then one really should sit down and re-examine how one reaches conclusions. Furthermore, when one feels compelled to add insults to such a flawed argument, then one should probably seek a professional to help one work through whatever issues are motivating one.




Note to Mods: if this post ends up in AAH, I will not whine about it.

 

[Ladewig]

Wikipedia is a fabulously useful resource for any sort of a topicf for whicfh no controversy could plausibly exist; for anything else, it's totally worthless.

The Haldane dilemma:

http://saintpaulscience.com

It's one of those things which nobody can make go away by waving their hands.

Yes. I forgot that Wikipedia is written by the evolutionists. Those guys are really get around as they spread their lies.


ETA: and even if we removed from this thread every post that cited or mentioned Wikipedia, there would still be enough posts to destroy your assertions about evolution.

 

[wobs]

Actually, that's not how the argument usually goes.

Fruit flies that shoot lasers, control the weather and teleport are still fruit flies. For evolution to be true, fruit flies would have to evolve into porcupines, or petunias, or people.

And world population didn't really start increasing until after DNA was discovered. Coincidence?

 

[icebear]

I mean, you've got an ideological doctrine which needs quadrillions of years and only has a few thousand or a few tens of thousands, tops: how retarded does somebody need to be to actually BELIEVE that kind of BS??

Another take on the subject (evolution vs Rastafari):

http://able2know.org/topic/184841-1

In other words, an apples2apples comparison (a religion which works on the same sort of intellectual level as evolutionism).

 

[Doubt]

A single BENEFICIAL mutation at a time. That's the assumption evolution works with. The vast and overwhelming bulk of all mutations are harmful or fatal or, best case, don't really do much of anything.

No, that is your assumption about how evolution works. And it is wrong.

Many mutations happen with no effect what so ever. Some of those fade out. Some of them persist for extremely long periods of time with no actual purpose. Some are harmful. Some few might help.

Some of those ineffective mutations my combine to result in a new trait that may be harmful of beneficial. But nothing much changes in the short run.

Then, some day, the isolated population of the given organism is under stress. That seemingly useless trait suddenly has a purpose because the organisms carrying it rely on it to survive. Other organisms that don't have it suddenly find themselves at a disadvantage in survival. Or worse, they have a different set of mutations that lower their odds of survival.

This is not one mutation at a time. This is a continuous process of overlapping change.