• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Icebear's Evolution Thread

If evolution stopped, say last night at 8:53 pm, EST - how long until we'd know?

I mean, yeah, it's a great explanation for how things got how the way are, but is anyone responsible for checking to make sure it's still valid? There ought to be a guy somewhere...
 
Last edited:
Madalch said:
Now, if you really wanted to see fruit flies evolve into something else, you ought to put them into a very large, sealed environment with different conditions than fruit flies are used to. Give them ten to one hundred years to adapt.
Click to expand...

Don't forget to poke holes in the lid. That was my mistake.
 
MikeG said:
The Humour sub-forum is thataway, Icebear. You'll feel right at home there ---------->
Click to expand...

I'll have to agree.

icebear said:
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.
Click to expand...

Amusing.

icebear said:
A listing of fifty or sixty such statements makes for an overwhelming indictment of that part of the scientific community which goes on trying to defend evolution and they (the academic dead wood die hards) have a favorite term ("quote mining") which they use to describe that sort of argument.
Click to expand...

Well... when the quotes tend to demonstrably be portrayed out of context and the people being quoted tend to get rather annoyed at the Creationists for the sheer dishonesty involved in trying to twist their words to support things that they weren't supporting... You may want to reconsider what your list actually says. What it's actually saying is that Creationists are desperate and have no real ground to stand upon. If they did have real ground to stand upon, they would have no need to resort to such dishonesty.
 
The double problem with evolution and time

The Haldane dilemma describes one kind of time problem which evolutionists enjoy ignoring.

Walter Remine’s simplistic explanation of it goes like this:

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.
Click to expand...

In a rational world, that should be as far as most people need to read. That basically says that even given a rate of evolutionary development which is fabulously beyond anything which is possible 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. People who have tried to work the numbers for more realistic rates of substitution speak of quadrillions of years...


The other kind of time problem which evolutionists have and don't like to talk about has to do with soft tissue turning up to an increasing extent in dinosaur remains.

http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=hadrosaur+soft+tissue&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


There is zero possibility of the kinds of tissue these articles describe lasting for even one million years, much less for tens or hundreds of millions as we've been indoctrinated to believe.
 
Last edited:
icebear said:
The Haldane dilemma describes one kind of time problem which evolutionists enjoy ignoring.

Walter Remine’s simplistic explanation of it goes like this:



In a rational world, that should be as far as most people need to read. That basically says that even given a rate of evolutionary development which is fabulously beyond anything which is possible 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. People who have tried to work the numbers for more realistic rates of substitution speak of quadrillions of years...


The other kind of time problem which evolutionists have and don't like to talk about has to do with soft tissue turning up to an increasing extent in dinosaur remains.

http://kgov.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=hadrosaur+soft+tissue&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8


There is zero possibility of the kinds of tissue these articles describe lasting for even one million years, much less for tens or hundreds of millions as we've been indoctrinated to believe.
Click to expand...

Among your other mistakes, you're working on the false premise that only a single mutation can exist at a time.
 
DC said:
argumentum ad Steve falacy....
Click to expand...

Amusing. It makes its point just fine, without being fallacious at all. Were one to try to claim that it proves evolution, sure, it'd be fallacious. It's not, given how it's used.
 
Wrong, again.

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

Haldane stated at the time of publication "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision", and subsequent corrected calculations found that the cost disappears. He had made an invalid simplifying assumption which negated his assumption of constant population size, and had also incorrectly assumed that two mutations would take twice as long to reach fixation as one, while sexual recombination means that two can be selected simultaneously so that both reach fixation more quickly.
Click to expand...
 
icebear said:
One version:

http://able2know.org/topic/121664-1

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

That's an obvious lie. Evolution is the dominant paradigm in the life sciences. Nothing creationists have come up with offers any explanatory power at all and a better explanation is what it would take to make evolution a "dead theory walking".
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom