fractal_butterfly said:
I am baffled by the statement, that evolution is as founded or even more founded than gravity. First of all: I don't believe in evolution, I KNOW that there is hard evidence for many evolutionary machanisms. You don't believe in that, that's a scientifically proven fact. Why I still reject parts of the evolution theory? Well, because it is not that well founded, like the OP suggests.
Actually it is. I'm not going to repost the evidence you can just look back what I and other people have shown, but I suspect no matter how much evidence proof or facts I give you won't chage your mind as you seem to have made it up before getting to the starting gate.
fractal_butterfly said:
Of course you have mechanisms like modification, which explain a large range of things like making a white moth black, having different people with different skin colors and several subspecies of dogs, all of which originate in Canis Lupus, the common wolf. If you look at the difference between a Chihuahua, a Great Dane and said wolf, this is amazing enough. But lets go a little bit deeper and look at the bigger picture.
Modification is, unlike mutation, a mechanism that recombines existing genetic material. There are mechanisms for modification going on in the process of the merging of sperm and ovum. But the effects you get from this are in the range of going from a dog to a wolf and vica verca. Which means, no genetic material is added and no material is removed. Thats just not how breeding works (Mendel could tell you some things about that).
LoL I love how you give an example of evolution and than call it Modification without actually explaining what you consider to be modification on a molecular level. Also you're wrong Substitution, Addition and Deletion mutation can cause new information and can cause things like fur color change, the pocket mouse is a good example. Your attempt to redefine evolution and give it a new name is laughable.
http://www.dnatube.com/video/11928/Natural-Selection-and-Adaptation
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/variation/comparative/
fractal_butterfly said:
This is one of my favorite examples, so here a little excursion. There are many fossils between Hyracotherium and our modern horse. But even in this well documented example, we still have a load of gaps. Most of the intermediate states of the horse's evolution are still missing. I know, that is no proof against it, but it is also not "a stronger theory than gravity".
You obviously didn't watch the video I provided on my first post as it answers your issues completely, and it is a stronger theory than gravity whatever you want to admit it or not. The reasons have already been explain on the first couple of pages.
fractal_butterfly said:
There are several problems with this. First of all, the genetic code, like any codification, allows only a certain number of meaningful combinations. With most of the mutations, the result is either unnoticable, which has no "advantage" in an evolutionary sense, or the resulting creature will be in a worse condition than its ancestors or rightout nonviable. There are several mechanisms in the DNA of any living creature on this planet (I DON'T want to argue, if viruses are living creatures or not, that is a completely different topic), which PREVENT mutations from happening (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair). They are constantly repairing errors in the DNA and therefore prevent mutations.
Reading the first couple pages of a wikipedia pages does not make you an expert. Yes we have mechanisms like Polymerase that repair DNA but it's not full proof. And when these fail it can result in a beneficial, silent or harmful mutations.
A good example of this is Nylon-eating bacteria, Which resulted from a frame-shift mutation which added information. Now since Nylon wasn't invented until 1935......... You get the picture, we have also duplicated this process in the lab in other bacteria such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa which got to evolve to break down Nylon. However Pseudomonas aeruginosa did not use the same enzyme as Flavobacterium strain.
fractal_butterfly said:
Like this, mutations are very unlikely as such. As stated before, "good" (i.e. meaningful mutations, that are not ignored and do not righout kill the resulting creature) are also very unlikely. At this point, there is the argument with the tornado on the junkyard. If you have a tornado running over a junkyard, you will get a big mess. But there is a small possibility, that it will result in something meaningful, like a fully functioning car. So if you have a really big amount of tornados running over the junkyard (we are talking about billions or trillions, given the amount of time earth exists), one of them will eventually produce said car. The problem is, that then comes the next tornado and destroys the damn thing... What I want to say is: yes, there is a possibility for "good" mutations, but there is an even greater possibility for mutations, that destroy the whole thing again. So even given the amount of time we have, the possibility is running against zero to have not only advanced organisms, but also the variety of species we have today.
It is in this case a simple matter of information theory and math.
This is a classical definition of a Straw-Man. You built up this made up flawed position and than attempted to tear it down. An argument I might add that isn't even your own as I've seen this example used and debunked before. Sorry but it's not going to work mutations aren't tornado's running through a junk yard and evolution isn't random. You completely ignored natural selection either because you don't understand it or you purposely ignored it.
Evolution is like trying to pick a sequence of lets say 9 numbers. Picking all 9 numbers in the first shot is highly unlikely, but natural selection allows you to save the numbers you get right. Try it it doesn't take that long.
fractal_butterfly said:
We don't even have to go as far as looking as the chemistry of large molecules, amino acids in particular, to support my point.
I'm pretty sure your point would just be another copy and pasted Straw-Man wall of text, so I might as well debunk it now and save you the time, it's a combination of chemical reactions and thermodynamics.
fractal_butterfly said:
I will not start a debate about the spontaneous ermegence of life, since this thread only discusses evolution, but this would also an interesting topic to further develop my thesis.
I'm sure your YEC school will be proud, but in reality.
fractal_butterfly said:
TL;DR:
What I want to say is, that you have to be careful, what you call a "fact". You have to check everything you are given as a fact today, because there are to many people trying to enforce their own agenda.
I don't want you to run into the curches, I want you to run to your books (or even wikipedia might be a good start). Check your facts, check the people that are giving them to you and start thinking for yourselves. Please please please, for the sake of humanity...
I am very careful what I call facts and I do check them, the fact you don't like that they're facts is irrelevant. Your misconception and disinformation isn't changing that they're facts. I've debunked your copy and pasted creationist mombo jumob before and will continue to do so. Also I rarely use wikipedia I prefer to use more credible sources.