Dr Collins, top geneticist, and CHRISTIAN....

[Youwerecreated]

If someone really thought they had scientifically proven the theory of evolution to be impossible, would that person be wasting his or her time trying to convince people of that fact on a message board?

Youwerecreated, if you really believe you have scientific proof that the theory of evolution is impossible (which it seems you definitely do believe this), then why don't you take a year or so to organize your work and submit your paper to the scientific community for peer review. If your ideas about the invalidity of evolution are actually correct (and haven't already been addressed) and they are able to get through the rigorous peer review process of the scientific community, then you will be well on your way to becoming the most famous and respected scientist of this century. You would almost certainly win the nobel prize, and that would be just the beginning of your fame and fortune for turning the entire field of biology on its head. All major news networks would fork over huge sums of money to interview you, and you could probably sign a multi million dollar deal with fox news for a one hour special. You'd surpass Steve Jobs and Bill Gates in influence, you'd be named Time Magazine's most influential person, and the accolades would continue to roll in for the rest of your lifetime.

So what are you waiting for, submit your work for peer review and become the most influential person in the world.

Well these days i am mostly at home or out for a bike ride. I suffered a stroke about 4 or 5 months ago. So i am retired prematurely,and there is not much for me to do these days.

I get on here, and i watch sports to see what kind of team my Arizona cardinals might be.

My kids are grown and gone ,and my wife works for the Government. So when she is home i am not doing anything but being with her. So i have time to do these few things.

 

[Montrovant]

Nice video,yes science has accomplished some amazing things.

But you do notice that he admitted macro-evolution has never been observed ?

You notice he admitted to Micro-evolution ?

Yet there is still evidence for macro-evolution outside of observations.



I'm not sure how this is relevant to evolution.



How does the degradation of DNA make evolution a faulty theory? It might, if scientists relied it as the only evidence for evolution, but they don't.

By the way, there's quite a lot of empirical evidence for evolution out there. Continuing to say there isn't, is being more than just a little disingenuous, especially considering I have posted such empirical proof of evolution in this thread before.



Well, we can. But it takes a long time. Macro-evolution is simply a slow, slow process. The various age of fossils of our own species ancestors can give you a clue on how long it takes for us. There is, at least, one observation of speciation. There's a species of lizard that was introduced on an Mediterranean island, I've posted this example before. They were first introduced in 1971, and they've already seen differences between the lizards on this island and the original population on another. Given enough time, speciation will occur.



Um, what? How can you say this, when you yourself brought up the experiments they've done fruit flies?

At any rate, we've seen this (i.e., change over time in inherited traits) in experiments. I direct you again to Richard Lenski and John Endler.

When they say 4.6 billion years ago they just left science and are relying on speculation. They built their theory way before all the facts are in, and that is why someone that is educated in the fields of science can point to the flaws in the theory. That render the theory dead, but the evolutionist continue to dodge the flaws until they can come up with a way to explain the problems with the theory, and so the dance continues.

It's not speculation. Observation is not the only evidence scientists rely on, for very good reason. You don't have the slightest idea why scientists and biologists and so on have been using the theory of evolution for decades and decades do you? Darwin wrote the Origin of Species and formulated his theories on the latest evidence of his day, and from what he knew of existing species.

4.6 billion years ago is speculation? Hogwash! Utter hogwash! We use radiometric dating to determine the age of the earth, which is based on the decay rate and half life of isotopes, in the case of the age of the earth, uranium-iron dating. We know how old the earth, we know how old fossils are, we know what the geologic ages of the earth happened.

This is hardly 'speculation.'

No there is not evidence of Macro-evolution,there is evidence for Micro-evolution.

If evolution is random,why is the fossil record lacking in negative mutations ?

Should'nt mutations if they're random and they're due to mistakes in the DNA, would'nt they produce evidence in the fossil record that were not beneficial ?

I don't trust the dating methods. They have proven they're not reliable.

Darwin got it right on one part and the other he was very wrong.

Just to speak to the point of negative mutations in the fossil record, if negative mutations lead to lack of reproduction, less survivability and death, and if fossilization occurs very rarely, why would you expect to find fossils of animals with negative mutations?

 

[Montrovant]

Yes mainly my exp was with the drosophila.

There have been a few arguable cases of information gaining mutations, but for evolution to be true, there would need to be billions of them. The fact is, we don’t observe this in nature, but rather we see the opposite organisms losing information. Organisms are changing, but the change is in the wrong direction. How can losses of information add up to a gain?

Observations confirm that mutations overwhelmingly cause a loss of information, not a net gain, as evolution requires. Your theory requires a major gain in new information.

How do you define 'information?' What is an 'information loss?'

Genetic data that makes up the organism.

Origional Genetic data lost, that results in the loss of a function or proves to put an organism at risk.

Let's see if random mutations can improve my sentence.

The big black horse fast and very strong.

Results after one mutation.

The big blaca horse fast and very strong.



two mutations.

The big black hoVse fast and very strtng.


five mutations.

Th4 big bWack horsC fast and very strongz

ten mutations.

FhN riujblVck horse fast and very uMronPv

Random mutations did nothing to improve the information ,it changed it ,and destroyed it.

The more the mutations the more it was destroyed.

And if mutations in living organisms worked like sentences in the English language, you'd have a point.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yet there is still evidence for macro-evolution outside of observations.



I'm not sure how this is relevant to evolution.



How does the degradation of DNA make evolution a faulty theory? It might, if scientists relied it as the only evidence for evolution, but they don't.

By the way, there's quite a lot of empirical evidence for evolution out there. Continuing to say there isn't, is being more than just a little disingenuous, especially considering I have posted such empirical proof of evolution in this thread before.



Well, we can. But it takes a long time. Macro-evolution is simply a slow, slow process. The various age of fossils of our own species ancestors can give you a clue on how long it takes for us. There is, at least, one observation of speciation. There's a species of lizard that was introduced on an Mediterranean island, I've posted this example before. They were first introduced in 1971, and they've already seen differences between the lizards on this island and the original population on another. Given enough time, speciation will occur.



Um, what? How can you say this, when you yourself brought up the experiments they've done fruit flies?

At any rate, we've seen this (i.e., change over time in inherited traits) in experiments. I direct you again to Richard Lenski and John Endler.



It's not speculation. Observation is not the only evidence scientists rely on, for very good reason. You don't have the slightest idea why scientists and biologists and so on have been using the theory of evolution for decades and decades do you? Darwin wrote the Origin of Species and formulated his theories on the latest evidence of his day, and from what he knew of existing species.

4.6 billion years ago is speculation? Hogwash! Utter hogwash! We use radiometric dating to determine the age of the earth, which is based on the decay rate and half life of isotopes, in the case of the age of the earth, uranium-iron dating. We know how old the earth, we know how old fossils are, we know what the geologic ages of the earth happened.

This is hardly 'speculation.'

No there is not evidence of Macro-evolution,there is evidence for Micro-evolution.

If evolution is random,why is the fossil record lacking in negative mutations ?

Should'nt mutations if they're random and they're due to mistakes in the DNA, would'nt they produce evidence in the fossil record that were not beneficial ?

I don't trust the dating methods. They have proven they're not reliable.

Darwin got it right on one part and the other he was very wrong.

Just to speak to the point of negative mutations in the fossil record, if negative mutations lead to lack of reproduction, less survivability and death, and if fossilization occurs very rarely, why would you expect to find fossils of animals with negative mutations?

Why wouldn't we expect to find them in the fossil record ?because Darwin expected to find many more transitional fossils then scientist have in their possession. Many of the fossil's were part of an imagination because they were never seen by man supposedly, and we only have bone fragments. Lot's of plaster though.

Q: What was the first dinosaur discovery? How and where was it found? What was its name? Was it a meat-eater? When did it become extinct?
A: The first dinosaur discovered and named was iguanodon in the 1820's in England, from a tooth brought to a medical doctor named Gideon Mantell. Iguanodon grew to more than 20 feet long and had a big spike on its thumb. But the first dinosaur scientists goofed and put the spike on its head. Iguanodon chewed plants. It lived about 120 million years ago or more in the early Cretaceous period. (Don Lessem)

Q: What was the first dinosaur discovery? How and where was it found? What was its name? Was it a meat-eater? When did it become extinct?
A: The first dinosaur discovered and named was iguanodon in the 1820's in England, from a tooth brought to a medical doctor named Gideon Mantell. Iguanodon grew to more than 20 feet long and had a big spike on its thumb. But the first dinosaur scientists goofed and put the spike on its head. Iguanodon chewed plants. It lived about 120 million years ago or more in the early Cretaceous period. (Don Lessem)

Q: Do they display real bones in museums?
A: In museums, bones are cleaned and cast and the copies attached to one another to make skeletons. The real bone is too rare to put out on display. We only have 2,100 good dinosaur skeletons in the whole world! (Don Lessem)

Dinosaur Bones & Fossils | Scholastic.com

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yet there is still evidence for macro-evolution outside of observations.



I'm not sure how this is relevant to evolution.



How does the degradation of DNA make evolution a faulty theory? It might, if scientists relied it as the only evidence for evolution, but they don't.

By the way, there's quite a lot of empirical evidence for evolution out there. Continuing to say there isn't, is being more than just a little disingenuous, especially considering I have posted such empirical proof of evolution in this thread before.



Well, we can. But it takes a long time. Macro-evolution is simply a slow, slow process. The various age of fossils of our own species ancestors can give you a clue on how long it takes for us. There is, at least, one observation of speciation. There's a species of lizard that was introduced on an Mediterranean island, I've posted this example before. They were first introduced in 1971, and they've already seen differences between the lizards on this island and the original population on another. Given enough time, speciation will occur.



Um, what? How can you say this, when you yourself brought up the experiments they've done fruit flies?

At any rate, we've seen this (i.e., change over time in inherited traits) in experiments. I direct you again to Richard Lenski and John Endler.



It's not speculation. Observation is not the only evidence scientists rely on, for very good reason. You don't have the slightest idea why scientists and biologists and so on have been using the theory of evolution for decades and decades do you? Darwin wrote the Origin of Species and formulated his theories on the latest evidence of his day, and from what he knew of existing species.

4.6 billion years ago is speculation? Hogwash! Utter hogwash! We use radiometric dating to determine the age of the earth, which is based on the decay rate and half life of isotopes, in the case of the age of the earth, uranium-iron dating. We know how old the earth, we know how old fossils are, we know what the geologic ages of the earth happened.

This is hardly 'speculation.'

No there is not evidence of Macro-evolution,there is evidence for Micro-evolution.

If evolution is random,why is the fossil record lacking in negative mutations ?

Should'nt mutations if they're random and they're due to mistakes in the DNA, would'nt they produce evidence in the fossil record that were not beneficial ?

I don't trust the dating methods. They have proven they're not reliable.

Darwin got it right on one part and the other he was very wrong.

Just to speak to the point of negative mutations in the fossil record, if negative mutations lead to lack of reproduction, less survivability and death, and if fossilization occurs very rarely, why would you expect to find fossils of animals with negative mutations?

People live with the results of harmful mutations. They don't all die off at birth and some have offspring.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How do you define 'information?' What is an 'information loss?'

Genetic data that makes up the organism.

Origional Genetic data lost, that results in the loss of a function or proves to put an organism at risk.

Let's see if random mutations can improve my sentence.

The big black horse fast and very strong.

Results after one mutation.

The big blaca horse fast and very strong.



two mutations.

The big black hoVse fast and very strtng.


five mutations.

Th4 big bWack horsC fast and very strongz

ten mutations.

FhN riujblVck horse fast and very uMronPv

Random mutations did nothing to improve the information ,it changed it ,and destroyed it.

The more the mutations the more it was destroyed.

And if mutations in living organisms worked like sentences in the English language, you'd have a point.

But they do, everything is the result of information. How would you create a theory without information ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

How do you define 'information?' What is an 'information loss?'

Genetic data that makes up the organism.

Origional Genetic data lost, that results in the loss of a function or proves to put an organism at risk.

Let's see if random mutations can improve my sentence.

The big black horse fast and very strong.

Results after one mutation.

The big blaca horse fast and very strong.



two mutations.

The big black hoVse fast and very strtng.


five mutations.

Th4 big bWack horsC fast and very strongz

ten mutations.

FhN riujblVck horse fast and very uMronPv

Random mutations did nothing to improve the information ,it changed it ,and destroyed it.

The more the mutations the more it was destroyed.

And if mutations in living organisms worked like sentences in the English language, you'd have a point.

The real important question to the scientist should be where did the information come from to create enzymes and DNA in water,do you have an answer to this question ?

 

[Woyzeck]

Yes mainly my exp was with the drosophila.

There have been a few arguable cases of information gaining mutations, but for evolution to be true, there would need to be billions of them. The fact is, we don’t observe this in nature, but rather we see the opposite organisms losing information. Organisms are changing, but the change is in the wrong direction. How can losses of information add up to a gain?

Observations confirm that mutations overwhelmingly cause a loss of information, not a net gain, as evolution requires. Your theory requires a major gain in new information.

How do you define 'information?' What is an 'information loss?'

Genetic data that makes up the organism.

Mutations are usually caused by errors in copying when cells divide. So I'm not sure where genetic data is getting lost.

Origional Genetic data lost, that results in the loss of a function or proves to put an organism at risk.

I'm not even sure what you mean by this sentence.

Let's see if random mutations can improve my sentence.

The big black horse fast and very strong.

Results after one mutation.

The big blaca horse fast and very strong.



two mutations.

The big black hoVse fast and very strtng.


five mutations.

Th4 big bWack horsC fast and very strongz

ten mutations.

FhN riujblVck horse fast and very uMronPv

Random mutations did nothing to improve the information ,it changed it ,and destroyed it.

The more the mutations the more it was destroyed.

Uh, no. The processes of mutation, evolution and biology don't work like the processes of grammar, even if nucleotides are symbolized by letters.

A better analogy than that is actually part of an image that often floats around concerning evolution. Essentially throughout a paragraph of text, the color of the text is changed to a miniscule degree, not enough however to see a change in color.. As the color keeps changing with every passing letter the changes keep adding up into different colors, so by the end of the paragraph you have a different color when you started. These tiny changes in color could be analogues to mutations.

 

[Montrovant]

No there is not evidence of Macro-evolution,there is evidence for Micro-evolution.

If evolution is random,why is the fossil record lacking in negative mutations ?

Should'nt mutations if they're random and they're due to mistakes in the DNA, would'nt they produce evidence in the fossil record that were not beneficial ?

I don't trust the dating methods. They have proven they're not reliable.

Darwin got it right on one part and the other he was very wrong.

Just to speak to the point of negative mutations in the fossil record, if negative mutations lead to lack of reproduction, less survivability and death, and if fossilization occurs very rarely, why would you expect to find fossils of animals with negative mutations?

People live with the results of harmful mutations. They don't all die off at birth and some have offspring.

You cannot compare modern humanity to other species in this. Yes, people live with harmful mutations. Our means for doing so, however, is unavailable to any other species (unless we provide it); that being our intelligence and technology. As a simple example, I have bad eyesight. I need to wear glasses or contacts, or I could barely function. What other animal has that ability? Were I forced to live without glasses, and further forced to hunt for my own food, I doubt I'd survive long.

Outside of humanity, if a mutation does not effect survivability, I don't think it would be considered positive or negative. A negative mutation will lead to less offspring (if any), therefor less chance of fossils.

 

[Woyzeck]

No there is not evidence of Macro-evolution,there is evidence for Micro-evolution.

If evolution is random,why is the fossil record lacking in negative mutations ?

Should'nt mutations if they're random and they're due to mistakes in the DNA, would'nt they produce evidence in the fossil record that were not beneficial ?

I don't trust the dating methods. They have proven they're not reliable.

Darwin got it right on one part and the other he was very wrong.

Just to speak to the point of negative mutations in the fossil record, if negative mutations lead to lack of reproduction, less survivability and death, and if fossilization occurs very rarely, why would you expect to find fossils of animals with negative mutations?

People live with the results of harmful mutations. They don't all die off at birth and some have offspring.

Humans these days don't under go natural selection, thanks to civilization and modern advancements in medicine and so on. We can live with any harmful mutations that might arise because we have the technology.

Animals in the wild? Not so much.