"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

There's so much wrong with this model of his but if he actually engages the
6 questions I wrote he'll have to deal with evolution properly meaning he
wont be able to rely on this hucksterish attempt at a refutation.
Claims that NS is all about chance and saying evolutionismists have only
1 explanation show how little the guy knows.

There's also the pleasure of teasing this noble pagan christian by making him face
the fact he's been lying quite a lot and as I recall that's classed as a sin
coming from his background

keppler wrote: »

BTW im still waiting for your explanation on Introns J C....;)

Here you go.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was [a] formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

sensibleken wrote: »

let us? Who's he talking to.

Himself d'uh. Three Gods in one.

housetypeb wrote: »

1
This god created light on the first day(and saw that it was good) but only got around to making the stars on the fourth day. what a guy.
(or rather the jewish goat herders that wrote that particular fairy tale)

i wonder did those goat herders have a direct line to Mr Brownstone when they were writing this saga.....:rolleyes:

Okay, it's been long enough. J C, have you thought about all of the
evidence we've given you in this thread? Are you able to give honest
answers to the questions in this post yet?

Malty_T wrote: »

roflmaocopter.:D

Communist Evolutionist!!!!:eek::eek::eek::D

That's good

J C wrote: »

I stand over my statement that the only mechanism postulated by evolutionists for producing the 'variety' that NS is supposed to select is a chance mechanism (Mutation).

How do scientists interpret “chance,” and does it play a role in natural selection?

Futuyma: Philosophers and scientists use “chance” only in the sense of
unpredictability. Chance means essentially that you cannot predict the
outcome of a particular event. For example, you cannot predict whether
your next child will be a son or a daughter, even though you can specify
the probability or likelihood. “Chance” does not mean lack of purpose or
goal in science. If it did, we could say that absolutely everything in the
natural world is by chance because we don’t see any purpose or goal in
storms, in ocean currents, or anything else. Evolution certainly does
involve randomness; it does involve unpredictable chance. For example,
the origin of new genetic variation by mutation is a process that involves
a great deal of chance. Genetic drift, the process I referred to earlier,
is a matter of chance.

However, natural selection itself is the single process in evolution that is
the antithesis of chance. It is predictable. It says that, within a specific
environmental context, one genotype will be better than another genotype
in survival or reproduction for certain reasons having to do with the way
its particular features relate to the environment or relate to other
organisms within the population. That provides predictability and
consistency. So, if you have different populations with the same
opportunity for evolution, you would get the same outcome.

Do you finally realise that NS works on the phenotype and not the
genotype?

Natural selection acts on the phenotype, or the observable characteristics
of an organism, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype which
gives a reproductive advantage will become more common in a population
(see allele frequency). Over time, this process can result in adaptations
that specialize populations for particular ecological niches and may
eventually result in the emergence of new species. In other words, natural
selection is an important process (though not the only process) by which
evolution takes place within a population of organisms. As opposed to
artificial selection, in which humans favor specific traits, in natural
selection the environment acts as a sieve through which only certain
variations can pass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

It just speaks of your lack of education in this area of study, I mean
everything you've described represents a problem with microevolution,
your beef is with the concept of microevolution - that is where the
chance element with respect to genetic variation is involved.
Why have you been so adamant in complaining about natural selection?
What is even funnier is that you explicitly wrote that you accept
microevolution :D:D You then moaned that macroevolution is a load
of baloney :D:D Macroevolution is just an accumulation of
microevolution over time but you don't like that idea so it's baloney

I'll explain further as to why your uneducated about this subject, natural
selection works on the phenotype which means the outward
characteristics - if any microevolution event takes place that benefits
an organism then the animal is naturally selected for it. An example is
the peppered moth, mentioned in the link above


Here is another explanation from that link:

Natural selection acts on an organism's phenotype, or physical
characteristics. Phenotype is determined by an organism's genetic
make-up (genotype) and the environment in which the organism lives.
Often, natural selection acts on specific traits of an individual, and the
terms phenotype and genotype are used narrowly to indicate these
specific traits.
When different organisms in a population possess different versions of a
gene for a certain trait, each of these versions is known as an allele. It is
this genetic variation that underlies phenotypic traits. A typical example
is that certain combinations of genes for eye color in humans which, for
instance, give rise to the phenotype of blue eyes. (On the other hand,
when all the organisms in a population share the same allele for a
particular trait, and this state is stable over time, the allele is said to
be fixed in that population.)
Some traits are governed by only a single gene, but most traits are
influenced by the interactions of many genes. A variation in one of the
many genes that contributes to a trait may have only a small effect on
the phenotype; together, these genes can produce a continuum of
possible phenotypic values

J C wrote: »

Your 6 factors are just that ... 6 factors involved in Natural Selection/Evolution ... and your posting doesn't deny the validity of my statement that the only mechanism postulated by evolutionists for producing the 'variety' that NS is supposed to select is a chance mechanism (Mutation).

Again, you compare natural selection to evolution as if they are the same
thing, illustrating your lack of education in this subject. Natural selection
is one of many mechanisms that make up the over-arching theory of
evolution. Genetic changes have nothing to do with natural selection as
you understand it, genetic changes either make life easier for an
organism or make life harder. If an organism is naturally in a more sunny
environment then the chances of a cosmic ray or whatever changing
the genetic make-up of an animal is higher, that is an example of the
interplay between genetics and natural selection i.e. the environment
naturally leads to the genes being changed by sunlight.
There is more to this question to be answered under your next question;

J C wrote: »

Please describe the mechanism that provides (as distinct from selecting/recombining) the genetic variety upon which NS supposedly acts upon to produce Evolution.

Since you finally asked:

Genetic drift versus natural selection

Although both processes drive evolution, genetic drift operates randomly
while natural selection functions non-randomly. This is because natural
selection emblematizes the ecological interaction of a population, whereas
drift is regarded as a sampling procedure across successive generations
without regard to fitness pressures imposed by the environment. While
natural selection is directioned, guiding evolution by impelling heritable
adaptations to the environment, genetic drift has no direction and is
guided only by the mathematics of chance.[20]

As a result, drift acts upon the genotypic frequencies within a population
without regard their relationship to the phenotype. Changes to the
genotype caused by genetic drift may or may not result in changes to
the phenotype. In drift each allele in a population is randomly and
independently affected, yet the fluctuations in their allele frequencies
are all driven in a quantitatively similar manner. Drift is blind with respect
to any advantage or disadvantage the allele may bring. Alternatively,
natural selection acts directly on the phenotype and indirectly on its
underlying genotype. Selection responds specifically to the adaptive
advantage or disadvantage presented by a phenotypic trait, and thus
affects genes differentially. Selection indirectly rewards the alleles that
develop adaptively advantageous phenotypes; with an increase in
reproductive success for the phenotype comes an increase in allele
frequency. By the same token, selection lowers the frequencies for
alleles that cause unfavorable traits, and ignores those which are neutral.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift

Not satisfied that this explains "the genetic variety upon which NS
supposedly acts upon to produce Evolution"? What about:

Allopatric speciation (from the ancient Greek allos, "other" + Greek patrā,
"fatherland") or geographic speciation is speciation that occurs when
biological populations of the same species split into isolated populations
due to geographical changes such as mountain building or social changes
such as emigration. The isolated populations then undergo genotypic
and/or phenotypic divergence as: (a) they become subjected to
different selective pressures; (b) they independently undergo
genetic drift; (c) different mutations arise in the populations.
When part of a population becomes geographically isolated from the
remainder, it may over time evolve characteristics different from the
parent population. If the geographical barriers are later removed,
members of the two populations may be unable to successfully
mate with each other. At this point, the genetically isolated group
may emerge as a new species. Allopatric isolation is a key factor in
speciation and a common process by which new species arise.

&

Peripatric and peripatry are terms from biogeography, referring to
organisms whose ranges are closely adjacent but do not overlap, being
separated by a natural barrier where these organisms do not occur – for
example a wide river or a mountain range. Such organisms are usually
closely related (e.g. sister species), their distribution being the result of
peripatric speciation.
Peripatric speciation is a form of speciation, the formation of new species
through evolution. In this form, new species are formed in isolated
peripheral populations; this is similar to allopatric speciation in that
populations are isolated and prevented from exchanging genes. However,
peripatric speciation, unlike allopatric speciation, proposes that one of the
populations is much smaller than the other.
Peripatric speciation was originally proposed by Ernst Mayr, and is related
to the founder effect, because small living populations may undergo
selection bottlenecks.[1] Genetic drift is often proposed to play a
significant role in peripatric speciation.

I mean, these have been shown to cause genetic variation & even
"be unable to successfully mate with each other".

The question of their status — subspecies or true species — is resolved if
they ever do come to occupy the same territory again (become
sympatric). If successful interbreeding occurs, the differences will
gradually disappear, and a single population will be formed again.
Speciation will not have occurred.
If, on the other hand, two subspecies reunite but fail to resume
breeding, speciation has occurred and they have become separate species.

An example: The medium tree finch Camarhynchus pauper is found only
on Floreana Island. Its close relative, the large tree finch,
Camarhynchus psittacula, is found on all the central islands including
Floreana.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Speciation.html#Allopatric_Speciation:_the_Role_of_Isolation_in_Speciation

And what about Darwin's finches? 13 species in that link there...
Didn't you mention a species barrier earlier? That was evolutionist
talk my dear fellow...

J C wrote: »

Perhaps you may 'honestly lie' ... but I can assure you that Creation Scientists tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth ... and some have paid with their careers as a result!!!

We'll see how true this statement is in a moment.

J C wrote: »

... a mutation may indeed alter a protein and cause it to do something 'unusual' that may have a benefit to the organism ... but this only occurs in a tiny minority of cases and it always involved a degrading of the CFSI of the organism.

Proof? Link? How does this bull**** explain the peppered moth mutation?
How does this craziness explain bacterial genetic resistance?
How does this craziness explain the technique used in fighting cancer
where a person will be pumped with drugs to kill bacteria then when they
have developed immunity & begin to reproduce the person will be taken
off the drugs - this kills the drug resistant bacteria and the old
un-protected bacteria re-emerge & reproduce? This is used in prolonging
a persons life & is directly explained by natural selection, the bacteria
are naturally selected because their environment (drug filled body)
caters for the very few genetically "abnormal" viruses that now can
reproduce. When no drugs were present they were not naturally selected
& could not become the predominant virus due to this trait.

Unlike your lies about degrading and a tiny minority:

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]

30% from studies has not "always involved a degrading of the CFSI of the
organism". Where does that put your claims? Into the lie basket? :pac:


Oh, and can we clear something up? The statement:

J C wrote: »

I stand over my statement that the only mechanism postulated by evolutionists for producing the 'variety' that NS is supposed to select is a chance mechanism (Mutation).

is wrong, I refer you to Douglas Futuyma, the guy who wrote the
textbook on evolution I quoted earlier in the thread & who is in the
first quote of this post:

Is natural selection the only mechanism of evolution?


Futuyma: No, certainly not. There cannot be evolution without genetic
variation in the first place. So there must be mutation and often
recombination to generate the different genotypes or the different
versions of the genes, known as alleles, which then may or may not make
a difference in the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce. You
can’t have any evolutionary change whatever without mutation, and
perhaps recombination, giving rise to genetic variation. But once you
have genetic variation, there are basically two major possibilities:
read on...

Were you lying again J C? Is Douglas Futuyma lying? Where's that
truth you were talking about, that creation scientist truth? :pac:
I suppose it was an honest Lie you were referring to, as in Sophus Lie :rolleyes:

J C wrote: »

It is analagous to a giving a kick to a squeaky toy mechanism ... thereby causing it to squawk due to damage from the kick.
The kick clearly isn't the mechanism by which the 'squeak' mechanism was constructed in the first place, and the kick clearly has resulted in a degredation of functionality of the toy ... and if you kick the toy again it is likely that the damage will be so severe that the toy will be permanently silenced ... and there will be neither a squeak nor a squawk out of it!!
Kicking toys or damaging genomes aren't good ideas ... even if 'unusual' things may happen when we do these things ... and mutagenesis therefore isn't a credible mechanism to account for the origin of the CFSI found in living organisms ... and that is why everybody (including evolutionists) avoid mutagenesis.

This is a load of waffle I don't understand because I didn't say anything
like this, oh and by the way I used to get the cheat menu to come
up in my old sonic the hedgehog sega megadrive game by kicking my
computer - kicking stuff does do good sometimes

J C wrote: »

I was drawing an analogy between raw materials (like ferric oxide and organic molecules) ... and the input of intelligent design required to specify the construction of CFSI-rich things like video tapes and living organisms from these raw materials.
I never said that iron filings would produce a Human ... but I did say that if you mix iron filings in water and ferric oxide results ... that this can't somehow be taken to show that a videotape of John May in action was 'spontaneously produced' ... and the fact that organic molecules can be spontaneously produced doesn't mean that a human being can be spontaneously produced from these raw materials via purely materialistic processes either!!

No it never was analogous because videotapes are not made by
stirring iron filings in water they are made by a different process, if
you combine iron filings, ferric oxide & whatever else make up a videotape
in the right combination & by the right method you'll get a videotape.

J C wrote: »

... that is the point upon which we disagree ... micro-evolution of pre-existing CFSI genetic diversity is a completely different process to the macro-evolution of the CFSI genetic diversity, in the first place.
I compared micro-evolution to adjusting a car seat ... and macro-evolution to the manufacture of the car (including its seat and its adjustment mechanism), in the first place.
They are fundamentally different processes.

Only according to you & creationists they are, to the whole scientific
community macroevolution is defined as macroevolution, your stupid
analogies do nothing for anyone except you & creationists & they really
are getting tiresome.

J C wrote: »

Abiogenesis has not been achieved by the applied intelligence of the Human Race ... so why do you think that it could possibly have spontaneously occurred?

Jack Szostak achieved recreating the process of abogenesis in a
labratory using the materials thought to be around back on the
early earth around half a billion years after it's formation or so,
better than that he succeeded in getting what he wanted despite
what you say so deny the evidence all you want, it doesn't make
what you say true with respect to reality.

John J May is on The Panel on RTE ONE right now!!!!

J C wrote: »

John J May is on The Panel on RTE ONE right now!!!!

I tought he came across as a very intelligent man with flawless ideas!!!:rolleyes:

NOT

Possibly the biggest nut job to ever be let on RTÉ?

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Damn I was studying there & missed this Will this be on the RTE website or anything?
J C, still waiting for a response to everything I wrote, I see I still haven't convinced you :rolleyes:

... no sooner said than done!!!

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Do you finally realise that NS works on the phenotype and not the genotype?

... another reason why NS is incapable of generating the CFSI in the genotypes of living organisms!!!

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

It just speaks of your lack of education in this area of study, I mean
everything you've described represents a problem with microevolution,
your beef is with the concept of microevolution - that is where the
chance element with respect to genetic variation is involved.
Why have you been so adamant in complaining about natural selection?
What is even funnier is that you explicitly wrote that you accept
microevolution :D:D You then moaned that macroevolution is a load
of baloney :D:D Macroevolution is just an accumulation of
microevolution over time but you don't like that idea so it's baloney

... 'macroevolution is indeed a load of unsubstantiated baloney without a shred of evidence or logic supporting it.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I'll explain further as to why your uneducated about this subject, natural
selection works on the phenotype which means the outward
characteristics - if any microevolution event takes place that benefits
an organism then the animal is naturally selected for it. An example is
the peppered moth, mentioned in the link above

... the Peppered Moth is just an example of genetic drift within a species within a Created Kind using pre-existing genetic information. All that has happened is that the % of the Moth Population with darker colouration increased within the population when the environment became darker due to smoke damage from industrialisation ... and the population has swung back again recently when the environment has been cleaned up by the Clean Air Acts!!!

None of this provides any evidence that this Moth is ever going to be anything except a Moth!!!

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Again, you compare natural selection to evolution as if they are the same
thing, illustrating your lack of education in this subject. Natural selection
is one of many mechanisms that make up the over-arching theory of
evolution. Genetic changes have nothing to do with natural selection as
you understand it, genetic changes either make life easier for an
organism or make life harder. If an organism is naturally in a more sunny
environment then the chances of a cosmic ray or whatever changing
the genetic make-up of an animal is higher, that is an example of the
interplay between genetics and natural selection i.e. the environment
naturally leads to the genes being changed by sunlight.
There is more to this question to be answered under your next question;

... NS and sexual selection are selection mechanisms. The problem faced by proponents of Evolution isn't the selection mechanism (everybody accepts that NS is capable of selection) ... the problem is generating the CFSI upon which NS acts ... and the only way that the CFSI can be generated is by the action of intelligence.

:

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I mean, these have been shown to cause genetic variation & even
"be unable to successfully mate with each other".
And what about Darwin's finches? 13 species in that link there...
Didn't you mention a species barrier earlier? That was evolutionist
talk my dear fellow...

... and they're still Finches ... and the Ground Finches can all interbreed ... so they are just varieties of Finches!!!!!!!
Equally, Darwin's Finches illustrate rapid speciation in action within Created Kinds ... wahich accounts for the variety of modern organisms that arose from the common ancestors who were on Noah's Ark.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Proof? Link? How does this bull**** explain the peppered moth mutation?
How does this craziness explain bacterial genetic resistance?
How does this craziness explain the technique used in fighting cancer
where a person will be pumped with drugs to kill bacteria then when they
have developed immunity & begin to reproduce the person will be taken
off the drugs - this kills the drug resistant bacteria and the old
un-protected bacteria re-emerge & reproduce? This is used in prolonging
a persons life & is directly explained by natural selection, the bacteria
are naturally selected because their environment (drug filled body)
caters for the very few genetically "abnormal" viruses that now can
reproduce. When no drugs were present they were not naturally selected
& could not become the predominant virus due to this trait.

... they are still viruses and bacteria ... and have they been so for up to a billion Evolutionist 'years'!!!!

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Unlike your lies about degrading and a tiny minority:

30% from studies has not "always involved a degrading of the CFSI of the
organism". Where does that put your claims? Into the lie basket? :pac:

... can we not have a difference of scientific opinion without you proving the weakness of your argument by your bullying prejudicial personal remarks???
The bottom line is that I am still correct that while a mutation may alter a protein and cause it to do something 'unusual' that may have a benefit to the organism ... this only occurs in a tiny minority of cases and it always involved a degradation of the CFSI of the organism.

... and the only reason that only 70 percent of these mutations have damaging effects, is because of the intelligently designed auto-correction systems that ameliorate the effects of mutagenesis and the article says that the 'remainder are either neutral or weakly beneficial' ... which means that the 'unsual' are only a tiny minority just like said!!!

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

This is a load of waffle I don't understand because I didn't say anything
like this, oh and by the way I used to get the cheat menu to come
up in my old sonic the hedgehog sega megadrive game by kicking my
computer - kicking stuff does do good sometimes

... it can do some good ... but it certainly isn't the mechanism that constructed your Sega megadrive in the first place ... and the only reason that the game didn't 'pack in' the first time you kicked is because of the robust built-in systems protecting the game.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Jack Szostak achieved recreating the process of abogenesis in a
labratory using the materials thought to be around back on the
early earth around half a billion years after it's formation or so,
better than that he succeeded in getting what he wanted despite
what you say so deny the evidence all you want, it doesn't make
what you say true with respect to reality.

A living organism has never been produced in a lab ... despite the applied intelligence of thousands of scientists being harnessed in the attrempt to achieve it ... so why do you think that it could possibly have spontaneously occurred ... using nothing but accumulated mistakes and time?

J C wrote: »

... but why do some Evolutionists refer to their opponents as mentally ill?

If I need to explain that to you then there's plenty of hospices I can recommend.