Evolutionalary theory.

Retrograde motion?

Retrograde Motion of Exoplanets Calls Into Question Theories About Creation of Planets | TopNews United States

:eusa_whistle:
Random events can't occur twice?

Flip a coin three times...

Selection is not random


Uh...you seem to have missed the "Geocentric universe" as in Earth centered, JB...as in forcing a explanation based on a preconceived notion.

And we're not talking about a simple binary example like a coin flip as you well know.

Generate two grand prizes winning Powerball tickets randomly in the same week and you've scratched the surface proving the possibility of parallel evolution.

Just to get you started, here is some lottery math: Lottery Math

Finally, selection not being random is moot since mutation IS random and vast majority of those mutations are damaging.
"Studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.[4] Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on cells, organisms have evolved mechanisms such as DNA repair to remove mutations.[1]"


Doesn't matter, you only need 30% positive ones when speaking of a population of millions.

You're not getting 30%. You left out the neutral and the article doesn't break down the neutral from the weakly beneficial nor does it define "weakly beneficial".
 
Last edited:
Here is the anatomy of an Octopus:

anatomy-an-octopus.jpg


Very similar right?
No.

The Octopus is an invertebrate, while the human is a vertebrate. This distinction is the largest divide in the Animal Kingdom.
 
Parallel evolution defies the principles laid out by evolutionary theory...RANDOM mutation perpetuated by natural selection.
Random mutation does not imply immunity to natural selection.

If my children randomly mutate the ability to breath nitrogen, and suddenly all the oxygen in the atmosphere disappears, my children will live on, and all their children will only breath nitrogen.

For two separate animals, like the new world and old world porcupines in the examples cited by the wikipedia article you linked to, to develop the same random mutations (and it might take 10, 100, 1000 different genes to control the generation of quills) at the same time is so close to a statistical improbability that in reality it is impossible.
In a 6000 year old world, it is impossible.

In a 4.5 billion year old world, with roughly 50 million species, it is probable.

Lets say that the average species generates 10 offspring per year (which is a gross underestimate), and that there are 10,000 members of species (also an underestimate)

That means, with our underestimation, there are 22,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 opportunities for light-sensitive tissue (eyes) to evolve.

If there is a one-in-a-trillion chance of evolving an eye, it means approximately 22 billion organisms will have eyes.


Of course, if you consider microbial life, these numbers are FAR too small.
 
Last edited:
Parallel evolution defies the principles laid out by evolutionary theory...RANDOM mutation perpetuated by natural selection.


For two separate animals, like the new world and old world porcupines in the examples cited by the wikipedia article you linked to, to develop the same random mutations (and it might take 10, 100, 1000 different genes to control the generation of quills) at the same time is so close to a statistical improbability that in reality it is impossible.
In a 6000 year old world, it is impossible.

In a 4.5 billion year old world, with roughly 50 million species, it is probable.

Lets say that the average species generates 10 offspring per year (which is a gross underestimate), and that there are 10,000 members of species (also an underestimate)

That means, with our underestimation, there are 22,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 opportunities for light-sensitive tissue (eyes) to evolve.

If there is a one-in-a-trillion chance of evolving an eye, it means approximately 22 billion organisms will have eyes.


Your reasoning is faulty in that this is not a binary calculation.

IOW it is not an either eyes or no eyes situation.

It is perhaps 1,000,000 different mutations occurring randomly often requiring a specific order to produce binocular vision.
 
Last edited:
Uh...you seem to have missed the "Geocentric universe" as in Earth centered, JB...as in forcing a explanation based on a preconceived notion.

And we're not talking about a simple binary example like a coin flip as you well know.

Generate two grand prizes winning Powerball tickets randomly in the same week and you've scratched the surface proving the possibility of parallel evolution.

Just to get you started, here is some lottery math: Lottery Math

Finally, selection not being random is moot since mutation IS random and vast majority of those mutations are damaging.
"Studies in the fly Drosophila melanogaster suggest that if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, this will probably be harmful, with about 70 percent of these mutations having damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or weakly beneficial.[4] Due to the damaging effects that mutations can have on cells, organisms have evolved mechanisms such as DNA repair to remove mutations.[1]"


Doesn't matter, you only need 30% positive ones when speaking of a population of millions.

You're not getting 30%. You left out the neutral and the article doesn't break down the neutral from the weakly beneficial nor does it define "weakly beneficial".

LIke you leave out the millions and billions of events that occur, when claiming its statistically impossible

Only need 1% or even less, when talking about a population of millions in many species
 
Here is the anatomy of an Octopus:

anatomy-an-octopus.jpg


Very similar right?
No.

The Octopus is an invertebrate, while the human is a vertebrate. This distinction is the largest divide in the Animal Kingdom.

BTW, you have forgotten the context of your post I replied to concerned ORGANS...not skeleton structure.
Evolution states that all mammals, including dogs and humans, share common organs because they share a recent common ancestor.

Evolution states that vertebrates and invertebrates are very different because their common ancestor is very distant.


The more genetically similar two species are, the more recent their ancestor. Our closest relative is the chimp, and unsurprisingly, the chimp is one of the most intelligent known.
 
He didn't say binocular vision, you illiterate twit. He said photosensitive tissue.

it's sort of mute even discussing it with someone so clueless as missouri, but if it gets the rest of us talking about how cool evolution is, then I guess it could be worth it
 
He didn't say binocular vision, you illiterate twit. He said photosensitive tissue.

it's sort of mute even discussing it with someone so clueless as missouri, but if it gets the rest of us talking about how cool evolution is, then I guess it could be worth it
I thought you were supposed to have a PHD?

I guess that point, too, is moot, though, as you wouldn't be the only liar here and nobody believes you anyway.
 
Evolutionary theory in bunk.

It doesn't take a deep understanding of science to see the flaws.

It is easy to IMAGINE evolutionary development in higher organisms...but when you apply critical thinking skills, the theory self destructs.

Here is a simple yes or no question.

Did all higher organisms with two ears, two eyes and one mouth evolve from a single common descendant?

I know the answer to that. It's in the geological record. The best place is the Grand Canyon.

You see, if you go all the way to the bottom and move up through the layers and look at the fossils, the oldest are very simple. Then as you pass through the layers, they become more and more complex. "Oldest - simple - newer - complex".

So it's pretty obvious what happened. Gawd was practicing. Since we all know that "evolution" is flawed, Gawd must have made little shell thingies and then when he got tired of those, he made little animal thingies. It takes Gawd a long time to get bored, and that's why there are millions of years between fossils.

And because he "practiced", things became more complex. How much more "scientific" do you need to be. I talked "fossils" and "shell thingies" and "stuff" and "old". All important "scientific" areas of study.

Derbyia.jpg


Geology of the Grand Canyon area - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The nearly 40 major sedimentary rock layers exposed in the Grand Canyon and in the Grand Canyon National Park area range in age from about 200 million to nearly 2 billion years old.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The more similar two species are, the more recent their ancestor.

You've that backwards and you fail to account for parallel evolution
I am looking at it from the perspective of the evolutionary biologist attempting to elucidate an evolutionary tree.

Genetic similarity takes parallel evolution into account.

Our closest relative is the chimp,

You're supposed to have a PHD?

Bonobo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Bonobo (English pronunciation: /bəˈnoʊboʊ/[3][4] /ˈbɒnɵboʊ/[5]), Pan paniscus, previously called the Pygmy Chimpanzee"

A student doesn't have a PhD ;)
 
Last edited:
No.

The Octopus is an invertebrate, while the human is a vertebrate. This distinction is the largest divide in the Animal Kingdom.

BTW, you have forgotten the context of your post I replied to concerned ORGANS...not skeleton structure.
Evolution states that all mammals, including dogs and humans, share common organs because they share a recent common ancestor.

Evolution states that vertebrates and invertebrates are very different because their common ancestor is very distant.


The more genetically similar two species are, the more recent their ancestor. Our closest relative is the chimp, and unsurprisingly, the chimp is one of the most intelligent known.

This takes us right back to the article I originally linked to concerning jellyfish (obviously invertebrate) and humans sharing the same eye genes...and octopuses having a completely different gene structure.
 
It's so tiring to hear the stupid "eye" argument, its already been debunked but the deniers just want to keep bringing it up, showing their ignorance of the matter.

THere are all sorts of eye types, from those that can just sense some light (which is advantageous to that species), to a hawks very great eyesight (which is beneficial for them as hunters). Many seem humans to be the evolutionary superior creature, yet we have worse eyesight than birds. There are other mammals, like the star nosed mole (from the "Life" series) that is blind and has evolved a keen sense of smell to find their prey. So there are all transitions of the eye, and depending on the species and what is most beneficial to their survival, they may either have just light sensing, no sight at all using other methods, or very keen eyesight. And it could be an animal that evolved later that has worse eyesight than those that evolved earlier. It's all about what's more beneficial to the species

Humans are a great example of evolution. We have intelligence, therefore instead of having most of our food intake going to strong muscles and quick speed to catch prey, it goes to the brain, our most important tool for survival, which is why humans are vastly inferior to strength and speed. Prey in the wild would die if they weren't fast to avoid predators, and predators would die if not quick and strong enough to catch their food.
 

Forum List

Back
Top