Why evolution is not possible.

[Hiyruu]

Alright, I’m back.

I’ve read some of your arguements and will try to cover as much as possible.

I maintain the idea that ‘variety is built in’ and will respond to environment, There is absolutley no way that this can be dis-proven.

When comparing ‘built in variety’ with ‘evolution’ what you are saying is either variety occurs by design or it occurs by chance. The thing is “natural selection” is a concept of elimination and thus less, yet at the same time evolution supposes many species come from few, catch 22 I think.

My theory says that many come from one-type because their potential is already there.

You see what I’m saying, because evolution is a process of elimination there will become less species overall, yet evolution also says that many came from few which contradicts that.

As to the dating of things I believe in the deluge hypothesis which suggest that many of the species we find in different layers actually existed simultaneously.

How can this be?

Let me give you guys another scenario:

If I have a duck pond in my backyard and on the top of the pond I have a duck swimming around. Then below the suface of the water I have some fish. On the bed of the pond there are some water insects, and in the earth beneath the pond there are some earth worms.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

              DUCK

---

              FISH

---

              WATER INSECTS

---

                WORMS

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Let’s say my neighbour is digging around nextdoor with a digger and accidently dumps a load of his dirt over the fence and into my pond. My pond has now become covered with dirt.

A month later I come back to the site and want to build a small swimming pool, so I get out my shovel and start digging.

Well after digging out the pool I notice something interesting, there are worm remains at the bottom layer then above that I see some insect remains, then above that there are the remains of fish, and finally the remains of the duck.

Now, an evolutionist would look at this and say because the animals were at different layers the insects must have evolved from the worms, the fish must have evolved from the insects, and the duck must have evolved from the fish. This of course would be wrong as all the species existed simultaneously and underwent a catastrophe. We can apply the same logic to the earth as a whole by suggesting a deluge which wiped out many different types and “levels” of species simultaneously.

[JonF]

*Originally posted by Hiyruu *
I maintain the idea that ‘variety is built in’ and will respond to environment, There is absolutley no way that this can be dis-proven.

It can be, and has been, disproven.

Now, an evolutionist would look at this and say because the animals were at different layers the insects must have evolved from the worms, the fish must have evolved from the insects, and the duck must have evolved from the fish. This of course would be wrong as all the species existed simultaneously and underwent a catastrophe. We can apply the same logic to the earth as a whole by suggesting a deluge which wiped out many different types and “levels” of species simultaneously.

Nope. An “evolutionist” would date the strata by independent means (which can’t actually be done in your example, but can be and is done [often by several different independent means] in fossil-bearing strata). Then he/she would compare the morphology of the specimens with each other and other specimens, do the same for DNA if available, and conclude that the insects, worms fish and duck are distantly related and were “laid down” around the same time.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by Hiyruu *
I maintain the idea that ‘variety is built in’ and will respond to environment, There is absolutley no way that this can be dis-proven.

Sure there is. Choose a small pack of animals and drastically change their environment. Observe the next few generations. This can be accomplished in your lifetime, even.

When comparing ‘built in variety’ with ‘evolution’ what you are saying is either variety occurs by design or it occurs by chance.

How about, the environment either acts like a filter for animal changes, or it acts as a trigger for animal changes, or both.

Every person who follows evolution that I know would choose “both.” Then they would say: changes are happening all the time to begin with. How can we tell which changes occured because of mutations or pre-existing conditions?

Do you have a solution to this, H?

You see what I’m saying, because evolution is a process of elimination there will become less species overall

It doesn’t say that.

[Darwin_s_Finch]

*Originally posted by Hiyruu *
I maintain the idea that ‘variety is built in’ and will respond to environment, There is absolutley no way that this can be dis-proven.

Well, that pretty much disqualifies it from any semblance of “science”, doesn’t it?
In a sense, the “built in variety” bit is true (but only in a sense), since the capacity for variation exists in all organism; however, specific instances of variation arise by chance. We can easily see that a gene which has resulted in Adaptation X, in response to Environmental Change Y, did not exist in prior generations. The gene, and thus the resulting phenotypic changes, is new. So, the concept of “everything is already there, it’s just waiting to be expressed” can be disproven.

**

You see what I’m saying, because evolution is a process of elimination there will become less species overall, yet evolution also says that many came from few which contradicts that.**

Well…no. Selection serves to eliminate individuals from the gene pool of a population. However, speciation, by its very nature, dictates an increase in the number of species overall. If one thing gives rise to two, how can you claim a decrease? That few give rise to many is entirely consistent with, and, indeed predicted by, current evolutionary theories.

**

Well after digging out the pool I notice something interesting, there are worm remains at the bottom layer then above that I see some insect remains, then above that there are the remains of fish, and finally the remains of the duck.

Now, an evolutionist would look at this and say because the animals were at different layers the insects must have evolved from the worms, the fish must have evolved from the insects, and the duck must have evolved from the fish. This of course would be wrong as all the species existed simultaneously and underwent a catastrophe. We can apply the same logic to the earth as a whole by suggesting a deluge which wiped out many different types and “levels” of species simultaneously. **

You misunderstand how sedimentation works. When your neighbor dumps dirt into the pond, all of the organisms will lie in approximately the same layer, not stratified according to where they lived. Such would be true only if you built a series of successive ponds on the remains of previous ones.

When we see contemporaneous fossils, we know the species lived at around the same time, though the individuals may not have. Further, ultra-fine layers such as those in your duck pond would not appear in the geological record - in geological terms, they would all appear in the same layer, which would also be the same layer as the soil in which the pond was initially dug.

[GIGObuster]

Hiyruu, If genetic variety is built-in, I am afraid you have to quote the research that proves that. Evolutionists are not scared of modifying the theory. I think you are still not realizing that genetic variety is not a killer of natural selection.
As for the flood thing:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt/flood.html

Well, let’s see. Let’s look at the usual creationist Flood theory, i.e. that the ordering of fossils is determined by hydraulic sorting (some shapes will settle faster than others), differential mobility (some life forms could flee the Flood longer than others), and differential habitat (some animals live at higher elevations than others). Let’s pick a nice case that looks at one of these mechanisms and controls for the other two. There are certain plants that often grow at sea level, near the shore. There are many mollusks that only grow in shallow water near the shore, and attach themselves to rocks. No differential mobility, no sorting since both types of organism stay put. Unfortunately, the particular class of plants involved (I’ll have to check my notebook at home for the exact reference – I think it’s the angiosperms) doesn’t show up in the fossil record until mammals appear and is never found in lower layers with mollusks that should have lived nearby.

[Ben]

Hiryuu, you aren’t doing your position any favors. You’re lecturing us on evolution- oftentimes quite pedantically- when you don’t seem to know even the most basic facts about the subject, and when many of us are students or professionals in the life sciences. Moreover, you’re giving irrelevant answers to serious questions, which is, if nothing else, a sign of serious disrespect?

Can you expect anyone to take your position seriously when you make yourself look so foolish?

For starters, you need to read the FAQs at http://www.talkorigins.org, which have already been pointed out to you. You also need to realize natural selection does indeed act on the genome- there are entire books written on the subject. You can start by reading my FAQ, which explains the connection between evolution and molecular genetics in some detail:

http://psyche11.home.mindspring.com/molevol2.html

If you read these FAQs and come back to us with a defense of your position which takes the facts- not your erroneous suppositions and misconceptions about evolution, but the facts- into account, you’ll be much more likely to convince people who themselves know the facts.

BTW, erislover: section 4.1 is the one on the hemoglobin cluster.

-Ben

[Hiyruu]

*Originally posted by JonF *

It can be, and has been, disproven.

Cite, please.

[Hiyruu]

I want to make it clear to the objective reader that www.talkorigins.org is not an objective site. Not only is it pro-evolution it actually includes a “Flat Earth” society site amidst the creationist section which is completley unnecesary and is simply an act of spite in a failed attempt to ridicule.

So I encourage everyone to do their own research and not take people’s word as fact.

[MeCorva]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Hiyruu *
I maintain the idea that ‘variety is built in’ and will respond to environment, There is absolutley no way that this can be dis-proven.

[QUOTE]

You might look at how we’ve tracked changes in mitochondrial DNA over humans. Many creationists use this as proof of Eve – so it may be close enough to your belief system that you accept it.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4055.asp

So, we DO know that mDNA does change over time. I am failing to understand how your ancestral forms can take account of this (since your ancestral forms seem to imply that DNA doesn’t modify itself). Perhaps you can explain?

On a similar thought – if Sheepdog dna were constantly shown to be different than wolf dna, would it convince you that variety is not built in? You’ve already said that you can’t be disproven, but is there anything we could show you to help you understand that you might be wrong?

Me’Corva

[tomndebb]

I want to make it clear to the objective reader that www.talkorigins.org does not claim to be an objective site.
It does, however, present actual scientific discussions that are cited, allowing people who wish to “do their own research” to look up the actual scientific papers in which the original information was presented.

And your sources are?

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Hiryuu, I think you have a lot of damned unmitigated gall by attacking talkorigins as biased and non-objective when you originally posted a list of questions straight from a Creationist web page (Yes, I did check out the original). Furthermore, the web page makes little secret that many of its claims are based on a literal reading of the Bible.

[MeCorva]

BTW, for those offended by my mention of answersingenesis, let me just say, I’d rather at least a TINY bit of what he/she knows is fact than none at all. Maybe his/her quest for knowledge at answersingenesis will eventually lead him to quest for more knowledge. We can only hope.

Me’Corva

[Hiyruu]

Let me add another dimension to my hypothesis.

Q.) In my model how does a ‘built in’ gene know how to turn itself on when required?

A.) I believe that since DNA is arranged as a coil it is very much like a receptor, and can therefore respond to an external signal. The phenotype is the interface between the signal and the genotype, and the genotype will respond to the signal by expressing built in potential.

We understand genes as instructions, I am saying instruction can either be in the form of signal or genotype.

[andros]

And your sources are?

. . .communicating through tinfoil?

[erislover]

Man, Ben, I just want to say what a hell of an interesting read that FAQ is. My thanks.

[ultrafilter]

*Originally posted by Hiyruu *
**Let me add another dimension to my hypothesis.

Q.) In my model how does a ‘built in’ gene know how to turn itself on when required?

A.) I believe that since DNA is arranged as a coil it is very much like a receptor, and can therefore respond to an external signal. The phenotype is the interface between the signal and the genotype, and the genotype will respond to the signal by expressing built in potential.

We understand genes as instructions, I am saying instruction can either be in the form of signal or genotype. **

Yes, since two things have the same shape, they must have similar physical properties! How could I not have seen it?

This is unabashed Lamarckism, and it has been disproven quite handily. Look at talkorigins.

[Hiyruu]

Isn’t it interesting that the more we learn about genetics, the more the classical evolution model falls apart, and has to be patched up with improbable statistics into some sort of pseudo-evolution that sounds more and more like the creationist’s arguement.

Although I belief in “default design” as opposed to creation, I do share some, and let me emphasize some of the creationist’s theories.

[ultrafilter]

*Originally posted by Hiyruu *
Isn’t it interesting that the more we learn about genetics, the more the classical evolution model falls apart, and has to be patched up with improbable statistics into some sort of pseudo-evolution that sounds more and more like the creationist’s arguement.

Pray do tell, where are you drawing this conclusion from? Also, what makes statistics “improbable”?

[tomndebb]

Isn’t it interesting that the more we learn about genetics, the more the classical evolution model falls apart,

Actually, (and you have provided no substantive opposing data), the more we learn about genetics, the more secure Natural Selection appears to be in its position as the best description of the process.

[Ben]

*Originally posted by erislover *
**Man, Ben, I just want to say what a hell of an interesting read that FAQ is. My thanks. **

Thanks! When I read the textbooks, I found the information to be too beautiful not to share. Let me know if you have any questions, or if any part of the FAQ was unclear.

-Ben