A big problem for Evolution?

[hairyhabenaro]

From what I know, Random Mutation and Natural Selction are the backbone of the evolution "fact".
I found this site that seems to clearly disprove the commonly accepted idea that random mutations and natural selection are driving evolution. I'm no expert on the subject but I am skeptical. I was wondering if anyone who knows more then me on this subject can find any holes in this reasoning, or is it correct. I'm still undecided so I'd appreciate your criticism and opinions.

http://www.randommutation.com/darwinianevolution.htm

[Squeek]

I'm pretty certain 'random mutation' merely means that it occurs randomly, not that the results are random. The results are what 'natural selection' entails.

The entire concept is that the species mutates to better suit itself in nature. The actual result is better or worse, and it accepts the better results and ditches what didn't work.

By the way, I feel the need to mention this anytime someone talks about Evolution. Evolution is a fact. It merely denotes that species have changed over time, which is incredibly obvious to even the youngest of children. The process by which it occurs is what is being debated. This is where Natural Selection and Intelligent Design come into play.

The reason scientists continue to pursue the truth is because accepting Intelligent Design means there's no reason to study anything. Science is the study of things. To say "well, the solution is that it's something we can't understand no matter how hard we try" is against the rules of science. So, no matter what, this is going to stick around for a long, long time.

[lord_carbo]

So how are misspellings in the "random mutation generator" and the fact that it "mutates" random characters into random things even a representation of evolution, anyway?

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog -> The quick red fox jumped over the lazy dog

Bam, my theory of evolution. I win this round, Marshall.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Squeek

I'm pretty certain 'random mutation' merely means that it occurs randomly, not that the results are random. The results are what 'natural selection' entails.

No, I'm pretty sure it's referring to the gene swapping that goes on during fertilization. It always happens, but only sometimes does a significant change happen. Having one of those changes occurs randomly,and the results ARE random, but the mutations always happen.

I'll look over the site later, but I HIGHLY doubt it carries any weight.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[drummerlsu]

I probably don't even need to say any of this but..

This site shows examples of a word going 10 mutations in 10 generations on a single line! This is ridiculous. Even one "successful" mutation takes a very long time. This is because many unsuccessful mutations occur too, they just die out quickly.

Also, I didn't read too far, but the site doesn't seem to account for the fact that a random change in the four-letter genetic language can't be compared to a 26-letter alphabet that has a completely different application. Yet this guy does math examples on the randomness of real english words.

It almost seems like he is writing this as deliberately misleading propaganda.

[T3hDDRKid]

Evolution as it is taught has been disproven. Now let me explain.

Scientists, textbooks, and most teachers tell you that evolution is when a species mutates, new chromosomes or DNA are created, and it produces a beneficial result and proliferates. However, this is impossible. A mutation has never been observed to create new information, nor is it believed to be able to.

Originally Posted by Creationwiki

Even if we go beyond that questionable ground of evidence for evolution, likewise science has not observed, as a result of these mutations, an organism changing into anything other than what the organism was before the mutation. The change or the, "massive changes resulting from little changes" that evolutionists allude to in trying to prove that evolution has been observed is in fact a great way to dismiss any other valid thinking on the subject. The important thing to keep in mind here is which side, evolution, or creation, stays within the realm of observable science.

Originally Posted by Creationwiki

The evolutionist would claim that the bacteria has indeed increased information as it produced a new read-out. But this new read-out is still a subset of the already existing DNA. The frame-shift mutation did not add onto the existing DNA rather it only scrambled what was there! There is no way around it, the variation or changes cannot become massive changes needed because if all it does is re-arrange the existing DNA it is limited to that DNA. That is why if they could produce some natural process that builds on, not scrambles the existing DNA to cause a new function they would have something. If anything I would say this is a special adaptation mechanism in play, which would be creationism, rather than evolution observed.

Read the full article if you are interested in the context of those quote.

This fact, however, proves the commonly accepted of evolution to be incorrect. Birds evolved from dinosaurs? And where did they get the new information to be birds? Where did they get the new genetic information for wings, hollow bones, and extraordinary chest muscles required for flight?

The only changes in observed in genetic mutation are the rearranging of DNA [often resulting in undesirable mutations] and the loss of it [resulting in the degeneration of, say, a wolf to a poodle.] Never has information been observed or been proven likely to be gained from a mutation.

http://creationwiki.org/(Talk.Origins)_Mutations_don't_add_information


This following site tries to take the site of evolution, but falls flat on its face. It claims that chromosomes do add new information, then completely contradicts itself:

Originally Posted by Howstuffworks

Evolution's mutation mechanism does not explain how growth of a genome is possible. How can point mutations create new chromosomes or lengthen a strand of DNA? It is interesting to note that, in all of the selective breeding in dogs, there has been no change to the basic dog genome. All breeds of dog can still mate with one another. People have not seen any increase in dog's DNA, but have simply selected different genes from the existing dog gene pool to create the different breeds.

Chromosomes mutate to add new information, yet it's never been observed? Hmm.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution9.htm

[lord_carbo]

Q

Originally Posted by T3hDDRKid

And where did they get the new information to be birds? Where did they get the new genetic information for wings, hollow bones, and extraordinary chest muscles required for flight?

A

Originally Posted by T3hDDRKid

The only changes in observed in genetic mutation are the rearranging of DNA [often resulting in undesirable mutations] and the loss of it [resulting in the degeneration of, say, a wolf to a poodle.]

Well there you have it.

[T3hDDRKid]

There you have what? I'm confused as to what you're trying to prove through that post. Please explain further.

[lord_carbo]

Genetic mutations cause the changes. Duh.

Creationwiki is no match for me.

[drummerlsu]

Originally Posted by T3hDDRKid

Evolution as it is taught has been disproven. Now let me explain.

Scientists, textbooks, and most teachers tell you that evolution is when a species mutates, new chromosomes or DNA are created, and it produces a beneficial result and proliferates. However, this is impossible. A mutation has never been observed to create new information, nor is it believed to be able to.

Even if it hadn't been observed doesn't mean it would be disproven. Additionally the mainstream scientific community obviously does believe it is able to.

Originally Posted by T3hDDRKid

The only changes in observed in genetic mutation are the rearranging of DNA [often resulting in undesirable mutations] and the loss of it [resulting in the degeneration of, say, a wolf to a poodle.] Never has information been observed or been proven likely to be gained from a mutation.

Just a quick example I found.

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

[talisman]

I have been recently taught in my biology courses that DNA can be both added and subtracted to a gene. You seem to be claiming that it can only be subtracted or swapped, but I'm willing to bet that that is just flatly inaccurate.

On an earlier point, a "random mutation" generally refers to an error during genetic replication which changes one or more base pairs on a chromosome. To have an evolutionary effect, it must occur in the gamete lines, not the somatic lines. It is NOT the process of recombination of DNA from two separate sources (aka in the zygote, at fertilization), but changes BEFORE then in DNA replication among gametes (aka sperm or egg lines).

[Pippin667]

Evelutions biggest problem is GOD!!!!! thats all i want to say on the subject

[jewpinthethird]

Perry S. Marshall is a cunt who never took a biology class

After 5 mutations:

Perry S. Marshall is still a cunt who never took a biology class

Aside from the fact it is impossible for a computer to produce random results, I don't see how any of this disproves Evolution.

What I do see creationist trying to force his logical fallacies on anyone dumb enough to believe him.

----

Check it out guys! I have debunked the Evolution myth with a very simple experiment you can do at home!

Take any object and drop it. It falls to the ground, right? Try as much as you like, from any distance at all and the result will always be the same! It is from this that I have deduced that the concept of "random" does not exist! If it did, then wouldn't the object you drop not fall to the ground? Don't question me! Don't think for yourself! If you think for yourself, you'll go to hell!

[T3hDDRKid]

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

Genetic mutations cause the changes. Duh.

Creationwiki is no match for me.

Mutations can cause changes, sure, but the point is that they cannot add information If humans did evolve from fish or whatever it is scientists are claiming nowaday, where would that information come from? Did the fish always have the ability to be humans? Or even go back to the single-celled organisms that evolutionists claim started everything. Single-celled organisms with just a few chromosomes multiplied their current DNA and/or added new chromosomes to eventually grow arms, legs, complicated organ systems, create ecosystems fully interdependant on its own creatures? One more point on this topic: If those single-celled organisms were only rearranging and losing information for, what, 6.4 billion years? (they keep changing that), don't you think that after 6,400,000,000 years they would have lost what little information they have and be down to one or two genes? Instead, evolutionists claim that they did, in fact, increase their information quite a bit, grow, and sprout arms and legs. [I, for one, would not want to be the in-between creature with legs, gills, and no arms.]

Problems with DNA aside, it seems very unlikely that co-dependant creatures could have evolved on their own. If they need each other to survive, how did they evolve in the first place? Also, take your organs. Many of them would be completely useless without all the data that they contain. Your liver could not fuction at all with some DNA gone. Your heart, depending on what was missing, would be severely cripped or would not work.


Edit: Pippin, I'm truly glad that you think that way, but this forum is for serious debate and discussion, not for poorly capitalized and spelled two-sentence answers. Please use a spell check or something or refrain from posting in forums such as these. [I sound terribly mean here, but it's true!]

[stretchypanda]

Let's get one goddamn thing straight:

EVOLUTION DOES NOT SAY THE SPECIES Homo sapiens EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS (OR "FISH OR WHATEVER").

EVOLUTION SIMPLY STATES THAT SOMEWHERE IN THE VERY DISTANT PAST, HUMANS SHARED A COMMON ANCESTOR WITH PRIMATES.

Let's get something else straight:
Evolution cannot be "debunked" by someone who just doesn't want to believe it because he feels believing in evolution condemns him to eternal damnation. A scientific theory is a statement that has stood up to every attempt to debunk it.

Jesus Christ I can't even put into words how moronic this is. I will deal with this tripe later. I cannot believe the vomit spewing from ddrkid's keyboard.

DEGENERATION OF A FOX TO A POODLE?! EVOLUTION DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY. WHY IN GOD'S NAME WOULD YOU EVEN PRESENT SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

First of all, evolution moves FORWARD. Variations that DON'T work are selected against by nature. Foxes and poodles aren't even in the same genus for God's sake.

ugh. Jesus Christ.

[the_unda_doggz]

Hey, stretchy... You mentioned a lot of religious terms in there, such as ''Jesus Christ, God's sake...etc.'' Just wondering... What religiong (if any) are you?

[Squeek]

Stretchy and Guido are both religious folks.

That doesn't mean they can't accept evolution or the big bang or whatever.

If all religious people blindly followed faith then we'd have very little scientific progress in the world.

It'd be like "hey i wonder what caus--" "jesus did it"

[the_unda_doggz]

Not trying to offend anyone, but I am not religious and believe in evolution.


Also, I can poop standing up sometimes. ^_^

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by T3hDDRKid

Mutations can cause changes, sure, but the point is that they cannot add information If humans did evolve from fish or whatever it is scientists are claiming nowaday, where would that information come from? Did the fish always have the ability to be humans? Or even go back to the single-celled organisms that evolutionists claim started everything. Single-celled organisms with just a few chromosomes multiplied their current DNA and/or added new chromosomes to eventually grow arms, legs, complicated organ systems, create ecosystems fully interdependant on its own creatures? One more point on this topic: If those single-celled organisms were only rearranging and losing information for, what, 6.4 billion years? (they keep changing that), don't you think that after 6,400,000,000 years they would have lost what little information they have and be down to one or two genes? Instead, evolutionists claim that they did, in fact, increase their information quite a bit, grow, and sprout arms and legs. [I, for one, would not want to be the in-between creature with legs, gills, and no arms.]

Problems with DNA aside, it seems very unlikely that co-dependant creatures could have evolved on their own. If they need each other to survive, how did they evolve in the first place? Also, take your organs. Many of them would be completely useless without all the data that they contain. Your liver could not fuction at all with some DNA gone. Your heart, depending on what was missing, would be severely cripped or would not work.

Suggested reading material: This with respect to this, since you clearly don't understand very simple concepts of natural laws.

The things you bring up (like the thing with gills and legs but no arms) are just retarded if you A) really think they happened and B) don't disprove a single thing.

You're just showing insurmountable ignorance if you actually think that you're giving legitimate arguments against evolution. Do everyone, especially yourself, a favor and go read a book by Michael Shermer or something.

If those single-celled organisms were only rearranging and losing information for, what, 6.4 billion years? (they keep changing that)

Is that a bad thing that that number keeps getting changed? No, not at all. You know why? BECAUSE SCIENCE IS SELF-CORRECTING! Is it such a stretch to understand that as we get more technological, develop better systems of dating, and compile more and more data that we're going to get more and more accurate?

"Hey, did you hear about the new development in quantum physics?"
"Pfft, like there's any weight to that. First light travels through the aether, THEN electricity and magnetism are the same thing, and THEN there's no such thing as relative time? Clearly physicists are so unsure of what's actually happening that there's no credibility to what they say."

That's exactly what you're sounding like, ddrkid.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[stretchypanda]

On a slightly related note that doesn't send me into a rage, I recently learned that whales have at least traces of a pelvis and femur.

I thought that was cool.