While breeders have always known that they could encourage better more desirable organisms, plants and animals, unlike Darwin they also knew that the range of changes was severely limited, and after a point the organism was harmed or died.
“A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order …
The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues … The scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on this finding they are calling “evolutionary control.””
Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective
The same posters here who ridicule you that "you're the old, ring in the new", have nothing to say about a world where
Dancing With The Stars is ranked among the top shows that the world watches.
It seems humanity has dumbed down considerably in the last couple of thousand years.
Well....I must admit that I don't read the several posters to whom you refer....and I've never seen 'Dancing With The Stars.'
But I do so appreciate the educated and introspective, you, and always look forward to your posts.
From what I have seen, none of the Darwin supporters has been able to dispute the math I have applied and provided in this thread.
My aim is for those who simply accepted the false theory of evolution provided by the neo-Marxist government schools to see another perspective.....one with actual proof.
See ya' soon!
Let’s be honest. The “math” you presented is simply standard fundie ID’iot creationist “math” that doesn’t apply to biological systems.
It’s predictable that ID’iot creationers will use “what are the odds” arguments they copy and paste from xtian ministries to "support" their claims. It's always comical to see that, since ID’iot creationers can always find fundamentalist hacks who will agree with their viewpoint, and “quote” it mercilessly. Aren't selective “quoting” and argumentum ad verecundiam fun?
How strange that the odds of winning the lottery are astronomical, yet, there are winners. What are the odds? It's like rolling a die ten times and getting 1928373645 and saying "wow, the odds on that were 60 million to one, what a coincidence!!". (And note that rolling 8888888888 is no less likely; the probability of getting 1928373645 is exactly the same as the probability of getting 8888888888.) If you post facto single out some particular sequence as "special" (such as "8888888888" or "life arising") then of course that individual sequence is improbable, but that doesn't mean that the dice were rigged (i.e., there were various gods behind that sequence). It's exactly as probable or improbable as anything else.
There is a difference between improbable and impossible.
Evolution is impossible.
Evolution is a fundamental fact of nature, that is why almost everything evolves. It is true of biology, religion, science, art, warfare, politics, etc.
Darwin's theory, pushed on unsuspecting students, is false.
Or.....see if you can provide any proof, you dunce.
Gee whiz. We seem to be on the horns of a dilemma, here. Do we accept the work of relevant science and biology departments of all the teaching and research universities
Or
do we accept the silly rants of creationer loons?
Decisions, decisions.
Advancing human and environmental health through teaching, research and outreach.
biology.nd.edu
Organisms are evolving and changing every day, creating, molding, and even deleting genetic diversity. Meanwhile, next-generation sequencing is reinventing evolutionary biology and our ability to track and probe evolutionary processes. Our researchers use cutting-edge tools to understand evolutionary processes within whole genomes that lead to differences in organismal function. We also use evolutionary differences to detect species in nature and predict their responses to environmental change. We study the evolution in many organisms, mostly in wild populations, including human diseases and their hosts.
Stop with the 80s postings. Your source is an extremist and looney tunes website if there ever was one.
You just do not understand the ramifications of disproving Ronald Fisher's theorem -- evolutionary biology was disproved. There's a whole series on it on your other looney tunes and biased encyclopedia (cough, cough) source wikipedia.
" At the heart of Fisher’s conception was his famous fundamental theorem of natural selection (Fisher’s Theorem). Fisher’s Theorem, published in his text
The Genetical Theory of Evolution (Fisher
1930), showed that given a population with pre-existing genetic variants (i.e., Mendelian alleles) the population’s mean fitness will increase. Not only will mean fitness increase, the rate of increase will be proportional to the genetic variance for fitness within the population at any given time. This constitutes a proof that natural selection leads to increasing fitness in idealized Mendelian genetics, although it is often overlooked that Fisher’s theorem does not consider mutations and without newly arising variants natural selection can only lead to stasis.
By itself, Fisher’s Theorem seems obvious and of little significance. The impact of the theorem came from the following two points.
- (A)
Fisher conceptually linked natural selection with Mendelian genetics, which had not been done up to that time.
- (B)
Fisher assumed that, when combined with a constant inflow of new mutations, his theorem guaranteed unbounded increase of any population’s fitness. Therefore in his mind his theorem constituted a mathematical proof of Darwinian evolution.
At the time of Fisher’s work, there were two competing schools of thought about genetics and evolution (Plutynski
2006). The Biometric school viewed genetics as quantitative and continuous, fully understandable solely by statistical metrics and a vague notion of Darwinian gradualism. The Mendelian school of thought viewed inheritance as the transmission of discrete Mendelian units, hence evolution was thought to progress by discrete steps. In describing Fisher’s goal in his text, Plutynski writes, “His aim was to vindicate Darwinism and demonstrate its compatibility with Mendelism—indeed, its necessity given a Mendelian system of inheritance” (Plutynski
2006). Fisher wanted to show that the established reality of the discrete units of Mendelian inheritance did not undermine Darwinian evolution (as some were arguing), but actually supported it. "
However, Basener and Sanford turned it on its head and destroyed it with their fundamental theorem of natural selection
with mutations. Fisher never included mutations in his theorem, but just assumed it.
The mutation–selection process is the most fundamental mechanism of evolution. In 1935, R. A. Fisher proved his fundamental theorem of natural selection, providing a model in which the rate of change of mean fitness is equal to the genetic variance of a species. Fisher did not include mutations...
link.springer.com
