The Failure Of Evolution Theory . . . in a nutshell, information

[harmonica]

The Failure Of Evolution Theory
by Christian von Wielligh


Excerpt:

For neo-Darwinism to be plausible, it must overcome the problem of the origin of new biological information. Firstly, it must be able to explain where the enormous quantity of information came from to produce the very first living organism (even if it was a simple single-celled organism). And secondly, it must be able to give an accurate account of how existing organisms gain new information, because without it they cannot evolve into more advanced forms with new body plans.​

​

Neo-Darwinists place their trust in random mutations (aided by natural selection) to generate new information. But mutations, which are copying errors, cause the loss of, or corrupt, existing genetic information. Small-scale changes due to mutations are insufficient to cause evolution, and various experiments have shown that large-scale changes are harmful and lead to the early deaths of organisms.​

​

So it’s not surprising that the examples of evolution by mutations that are included in our textbooks and presented by the media comprise of the loss of information. And although mutations can sometimes be beneficial, such as the defective gene in Tomcod fish that enable them to live in PCB-polluted water, such small-scale changes does not cause creatures to evolve into new types of creatures. A fish with mutations is still a fish.​

​

Natural selection is also often used in an attempt to convince us that evolution actually happens. But this too cannot generate new information. It can only ‘select’ traits from a pool of existing genetic information (that may include mutations) to produce an assortment of animals of the same kind. Darwin’s Galapagos finches with their various beak sizes, is such an example. Although variations occur between these finches, they’re all still finches. They didn’t evolve into something new.​

Read More

Also, get a copy of The Collapse of Darwinism: How Medical Science Proves Evolution by Natural Selection is a Failed Theory

Excerpt:

Most people intuitively understand that Darwin's theory of evolution-natural selection acting upon random mutations-is a wholly inadequate theory for the creation of a human being. And most people feel unprepared to debate those scientists, professors, and scholars who use their academic authority to defend Darwinism, often bullying and belittling those of us who dare doubt Darwin.​

​

Now, Bredemeier identifies and succinctly encapsulates why Darwinism fails. Using anatomy and physiology as only a physician can, Bredemeier exposes the errors and false logic that Darwinian acolytes continue to employ as they protect their mortally wounded theory. Any reader with a high school or college education will become armed with straightforward examples of exactly why Darwinism fails.​

​

From anatomy and physiology of the human body-including neuroscience, genetics, embryology, and other fascinating fields of the increasingly numerous biological sciences-Bredemeier provides indisputable and damning evidence for which academicians, scientists, and even Nobel laureates, who zealously defend Darwinism, have no adequate answer.​

1. it can't be a failure--it's a theory
2. creationists don't even have a theory
hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahah

 

[harmonica]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

You don't think Darwin was wrong about anything?

give us the creationists' theory --they don't have one !!!
o --I know what it is = ''god did it ''

 

[Hollie]

Yeah, I remember you never posted your proof.

Nah. We both know that's not true. You're just another lying-ass whore like toobfreak.

So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome or did you crap your pants again? Don't forget the link. I know you're big on those . . . except when you're not.

Thanks.

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

As we see with regularity, the false claims from the science illiterate / angry religious extremists are taken directly from the more notorious of the Christian madrassah.

CB101: Most mutations harmful? (talkorigins.org)

Claim CB101:
Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.

Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
Response:

1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).
   
   The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
   
   
2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
   • Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
   • Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
   • Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
   • A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
   • Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
   • In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

Still waiting for the religious extremist to post the ID'iot creationer ''General Theory of Supernatural Creation''

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yeah, I remember you never posted your proof.

Nah. We both know that's not true. You're just another lying-ass whore like toobfreak.

So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome or did you crap your pants again? Don't forget the link. I know you're big on those . . . except when you're not.

Thanks.

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.

As we see with regularity, the false claims from the science illiterate / angry religious extremists are taken directly from the more notorious of the Christian madrassah.

CB101: Most mutations harmful? (talkorigins.org)

Claim CB101:
Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.

Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
Response:

1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).
   
   The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
   
   
2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
   • Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
   • Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
   • Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
   • A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
   • Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
   • In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

Still waiting for the religious extremist to post the ID'iot creationer ''General Theory of Supernatural Creation''

Seems I too was being overly pessimistic.

 

[Moonglow]

Evolution is 100 percent fact
I could give many examples ..I am not
Denying evolution only means you’re either a religious nut or science illiterate

You don't think Darwin was wrong about anything?

Sure just like the Book of Genesis is wrong about many things.

 

[Ringtone]

Well, I'm glad you wrote an article, I've written three textbooks, but again, I'm not an atheist.

So what? My article is a comprehensive survey on the most pertinent abiogenetic research to date, entailing the work and findings of the leading lights thereof. You don't know dick about the pertinent science, and you have no idea how obvious your ignorance is to someone like me.

And that's the third time you've told me you're a theist. Again, so what? You're a "devout theist" who has never studied the pertinent metaphysics, apologetics, mathematics, astrophysics and cosmology of origin. You believe God exists, but call the knowledge of those who are learned in these things rubbish. You're just another theistic fideist—derp derp.

You might as well be a mindless, slogan-spouting twit of the new atheism.

That was kind of the point. Just because things don't happen on observable human time scales don't mean they don't happen.

Your point is stupid. You still don't grasp the realities of the matter. Observing an instance of abiogenesis—the formation of a microscopic lifeform up from the most basic organic precursors by purely natural means in raw nature—in and of itself is impossible. And, by the way, Mr. I'm-don't-care-but-will-spout-my-uninformed-opinion-anyway, you would grasp why that's so and why time scales are ultimately irrelevant to that impossibility if you were to read my article.

Oh I'm anything but a leftist. . . .

I said you argue like a leftist!

The mere chemistry of natural means cannot produce life.

Pulled that one out of yer ass, did ya?

No, I pulled that out of years of study and research: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism. You pulled your puerile retort out of your ass and forgot to dig out a real counterargument, just like a leftist.

You may be right [about the immediate origin of life] but unprovable. [sic]

My opinion is informed, yours isn't. I hold abiogenesis is impossible for reasons your unlearned mind can't even begin to fathom.

But God is INTELLIGENCE, not intelligent life.
God is. And much more. God is the infinite source of all qualities, but that doesn't prove that God didn't create chemistry to create life for him, nor does it satisfy the problem that if life comes from life and intelligent life comes from intelligent life, then where did the first life come from as you've already conceded that life must have a cause and a cause is a beginning! So there had to be a point where life came from NON-life. I'm afraid you've painted yourself into a corner.

I was obviously speaking tongue-in-cheek, and I didn't paint myself into any corner, dummy. What the hell is wrong with you? I made it abundantly clear that abiogenesis is impossible. God didn't equip nature to produce life on its own. There is no way in hell the rudimentary chemical processes of mindless nature can produce life. I don't give a crap what you believe. Your uninformed opinion is the stuff of rank naivety.

God directly formed terrestrial life from preexisting, non-living organic molecules. Of course, life began to exist.

You most certainly did imply in the above that because we're here, abiogenesis must have occurred. In this post, you back off that a bit. It does not necessarily follow that God imbued nature with the ability to produce life on its own, does it?

Yours is the blathersmack of a damn fool who believes what he's told to believe sans any real knowledge of his own.

If you say so.

I do say so, again.

 

[Ringtone]

Its been proven babe--------evolution is actually a quick process....which ia why man was able to make wolves into tiny Yorkshire terrier dogs.

Selective breeding does not prove evolution, babe. Try again.

 

[Ringtone]

TRANSLATION: I owned the dude like my little bitch so now all he has left are personal insults. I pretty much expected as much.

TRANSLATION: You're a lying whore who doesn't know squat about abiogenesis and is trying bluff his bitch ass along. I pretty much expected you to argue like a leftist whore.

 

[Grumblenuts]

God directly formed terrestrial life from preexisting, non-living organic molecules.

And the fish were left to fend for themselves presumably.. You sure no inorganic additives were required? Electrolytes are kind of important ya know. Such a tard, dismissing chemistry. Lol!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So did you ever post your proof that mutations have actually been observed to add new information to the genome

You claimed they never do.
Why do I have to post any proof?

You made a claim.....prove it already.......or keep whining.

 

[Ringtone]

You claimed they never do.
Why do I have to post any proof?

You made a claim.....prove it already.......or keep whining.

Nonsense. You never defined what you regard to be new information as you stupidly alleged a contradiction due to your little knowledge.

Once again:

Given that genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information de novo, and given that latent, originally compressed genetic information is expressed in populations, it's almost as if what constitutes "new information" depends on how one defines new information. Given that DNA codes for proteins and traits, it's almost as if what constitutes “a new function" depends on how one defines new functions relative to varying criteria. Given that many of the examples of new information and functions, touted by evolutionists over the years, were later shown to be the stuff of preexisting genetic algorithms and genetic compactions, it's almost as if the falsified designations were predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism. Indeed, given that the matter is further complicated by the fact that what constitutes "new" or "information" or "functions," in and of themselves, respectively, also depends on how one defines them, once again, relative to varying criteria. Gee whiz! Evolutionists, creationists and ID theorists not only disagree between themselves over these matters, but also disagree, respectively, among themselves.​

​

Hot damn!​

​

It's almost as if the incalculably complex realities of the genome defy the dogmatic, black-and-white think of your childishly simple-minded ignorance, that because of your ignorance you stupidly alleged contradictions in my explications that exist nowhere else in the world, but your boorishly arrogant mind of little knowledge!​

​

Still winning!​

​

P.S. Don’t forget to see your enormous blunder in post #523 again.​

​

Thanks.

​

​

 

[toobfreak]

You don't know dick about the pertinent science

That's right, I don't know dick. I'll leave that up to you.

 

[toobfreak]

TRANSLATION: You're a lying whore who doesn't know squat about abiogenesis and is trying bluff his bitch ass along. I pretty much expected you to argue like a leftist whore.

Nope, just someone smart enough to know that evolution is real, that you're a quack, and that I really don't care about you or your quaint theories.

 

[Ringtone]

And the fish were left to fend for themselves presumably.. You sure no inorganic additives were required? Electrolytes are kind of important ya know. Such a tard, dismissing chemistry. Lol!

At this level we're talking about the aggregation of the fundamental, organic compounds of life, not ingested additives.

Read and learn: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism.

 

[Ringtone]

I never said that. The fact that you can't read shows your assertions are bull. I said there is no scientific or mathematical proof.

Hogwash! The fact that you're blind to the most immediate proofs of God's existence in the world shows your assertions are bull, namely, the mumble jumble of Hinduism. The logical and mathematical proofs of God's existence abound.

There is no scientific proof of God, otherwise, anyone could repeat the experiment and all come to the same conclusion.

Speaking colloquially, science doesn't prove things. Science tentatively verifies or falsifies things. The scientific proof of God's existence is indirect, dummy. And the preeminent empirical evidence for God's existence is the existence of the Universe itself relative to those logical and mathematical proofs.

The REAL proof of God comes from WITHIN, direct, personal experience. And He intended it that way because not everyone is ready to understand God and He only reveals himself to those who are ready for him! And that is supported by the Vedic literature going back 5,000 years!

God is logic, and God reveals himself via his creation and the rational forms and logical categories of the human mind, i.e., the Imago Dei. The language of God entails the ramifications of logic and mathematics.

Once again: The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

The most obvious mathematical proof for God's existence relative to the existence of the Universe is the impossibility of an actual infinite of physical substance, namely, an infinite regress of causal events in time, as the latter cannot be traversed to the present, and the most obvious logical proof goes to the necessity of an eternal existent.

Rubbish is not an argument.

Are you arguing that the physical world came into existence out of an ontological nothingness, that is caused itself to exist . . . before it existed?

I know, I know, you want to say, "I never said that."

What you do is disregard those things you don't understand out of hand sans grasping the ramifications.

 

[toobfreak]

Hogwash! The fact that you're blind to the most immediate proofs of God's existence

Hey, I could use some good hogwash! Know where I can get some? BTW, jackass, how can I be blind to the most immediate proof of God when I already KNOW God exists, you idiot?!

 

[Ringtone]

Nope, just someone smart enough to know that evolution is real, that you're a quack, and that I really don't care about you or your quaint theories.

Nope, you're just another quack who mindlessly presupposes that the metaphysical apriority of naturalism is necessarily true and, therefore, does not really know why he believes evolution is true.

 

[Hollie]

I never said that. The fact that you can't read shows your assertions are bull. I said there is no scientific or mathematical proof.

Hogwash! The fact that you're blind to the most immediate proofs of God's existence in the world shows your assertions are bull, namely, the mumble jumble of Hinduism. The logical and mathematical proofs of God's existence abound.

There is no scientific proof of God, otherwise, anyone could repeat the experiment and all come to the same conclusion.

Speaking colloquially, science doesn't prove things. Science tentatively verifies or falsifies things. The scientific proof of God's existence is indirect, dummy. And the preeminent empirical evidence for God's existence is the existence of the Universe itself relative to those logical and mathematical proofs.

The REAL proof of God comes from WITHIN, direct, personal experience. And He intended it that way because not everyone is ready to understand God and He only reveals himself to those who are ready for him! And that is supported by the Vedic literature going back 5,000 years!

God is logic, and God reveals himself via his creation and the rational forms and logical categories of the human mind, i.e., the Imago Dei. The language of God entails the ramifications of logic and mathematics.

Once again: The Incontrovertible Science and Mathematics of God's Existence

The most obvious mathematical proof for God's existence relative to the existence of the Universe is the impossibility of an actual infinite of physical substance, namely, an infinite regress of causal events in time, as the latter cannot be traversed to the present, and the most obvious logical proof goes to the necessity of an eternal existent.

Rubbish is not an argument.

Are you arguing that the physical world came into existence out of an ontological nothingness, that is caused itself to exist . . . before it existed?

I know, I know, you want to say, "I never said that."

What you do is disregard those things you don't understand out of hand sans grasping the ramifications.

I have to point out that your typical pattern of behavior that includes saliva-slinging, juvenile tirades and linking to your earlier, discredited threads does nothing to support your claims to magic and supernaturalism.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I have to point out that your typical pattern of behavior that includes saliva-slinging, juvenile tirades and linking to your earlier, discredited threads does nothing to support your claims to magic and supernaturalism.

Yes, the man has no sense of irony, lol. Straight from the link he keeps peddling (which, of course, presents nothing new):

{atheists are purportedly} breezily unaware of their metaphysical biases or unwilling to objectively separate themselves from them long enough to engage in a reasonably calm and courteous discussion

Boy if that doesn't invite further reading,.. I don't know!

 

[Ringtone]

Hey, I could use some good hogwash! Know where I can get some? BTW, jackass, how can I be blind to the most immediate proof of God when I already KNOW God exists, you idiot?!

I wouldn't know what's going on in your head given that Hinduism absurdly holds that the Universe has cyclically existed from eternity in violation of the imperatives of logic, mathematics and science.