|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Sept 20, 2011 11:45:30 GMT -5
www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms06.htmlA look at Creation science. What amused me enough to post this is the fact that if you try to E-mail the author & select "Pointing out errors," the E-mail application just closes. I'm thinking I'll try it later under "editors or proofreaders" & see if I get anything. I find it odd that they want to be taken seriously when I can only find the "biologist" quoted on other Creationism websites--I'm not convinced he even exists.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 20, 2011 12:07:47 GMT -5
I'm gonna kill some time before I need to head to class. Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. These breaks or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an "accident," and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them. (emphasis mine) The only part I take serious issue with here is the bold section. DNA damage gets repaired all the damn time. In fact, there are about 100,000 breaks per cell per hour. If it wasn't repaired that effectively fetal cancer would be kind of a problem. Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature… Well, that was stupid. Most people are born with something like 100 mutations in their genome. The vast majority of mutations do absolutely nothing. This is in part to how the majority of our genes are garbage and in part because of how resilient biology is in general. Even when a mutation is in an important area it often doesn't matter because it could easily still code for the same protein or it alters its structure in a non critical region and works pretty much the same way leading to no loss of function. And this is ignoring things like duplications of entire genes, which gives the body a spare copy and can be safely mutated (as an aside, that is why we have hemoglobin, it's the result of duplication events). Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed. All mutations have proved to be harmful. Hemoglobin. There, a useful mutation. Every effort put into "generating a useful mutation" has resulted in failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to produce mutations in fruit flies, as these insects reproduce very rapidly and so mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation of these flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed. It's been done in E. coli and all that is needed is one example to prove that mutations can be of benefit. The same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed in human beings have had deleterious results. All mutations that take place in humans result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, Down syndrome, albinism, dwarfism or cancer. Needless to say, a process that leaves people disabled or sick cannot be "an evolutionary mechanism"-evolution is supposed to produce forms that are better fitted to survive. And lactose tolerance, don't forget that one. There's even still some people without it. It is a very recent mutation and improves our fitness. The only instance evolutionary biologists give of "useful mutation" is the disease known as sickle cell anemia. In this, the hemoglobin molecule, which serves to carry oxygen in the blood, is damaged as a result of mutation, and undergoes a structural change. As a result of this, the hemoglobin molecule's ability to carry oxygen is seriously impaired. People with sickle cell anemia suffer increasing respiratory difficulties for this reason. However, this example of mutation, which is discussed under blood disorders in medical textbooks, is strangelyevaluated by some evolutionary biologists as a "useful mutation."
They say that the partial immunity to malaria by those with the illness is a "gift" of evolution. Using the same logic, one could say that, since people born with genetic leg paralysis are unable to walk and so are saved from being killed in traffic accidents, therefore genetic leg paralysis is a "useful genetic feature." This logic is clearly totally unfounded. It's considered useful because it means they are immune to malaria, which kills a whole fuckton of people. Not to mention that sickle cell anemia is most prevalent in regions of the world where there is a lot of malaria. In places where there is widespread malaria being immune to it makes you fitter, even if it lowers your fitness in other regions. Kind of like how pale skin can be an advantage in colder and cloudier regions because you need less sun to make vitamin D, but in warmer and sunnier regions they get burnt. As for the stupid leg counterexample, sickle cell anemia demonstratively lets people live longer, the same is not true for the leg paralysis. It is obvious that mutations are solely a destructive mechanism. Pierre-Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, is quite clear on this point in a comment he made about mutations. Grassé compared mutations to "making mistakes in the letters when copying a written text." And as with mutations, letter mistakes cannot give rise to any information, but merely damage such information as already exists. Grassé explained this fact in this way:
Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how…. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy.24
So for that reason, as Grassé puts it, "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."25 The problem here is assuming genetics is the same as writing, it's not. Besides, I've already given numerous examples of mutations that increase fitness. To summarize; E. coli that can digest citrate, hemoglobin, lactose tolerance, and they even provided an example with sickle cell anemia (assuming the bearer of this mutation lives in an environment with malaria). I'm not even going to bother checking the sources of the quotes from scientists, but I would be shocked if the majority weren't taken out of context. Alternatively, they could be from a much earlier time where there was less understanding of genetics and evolution.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Sept 20, 2011 13:39:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Random Guy on Sept 20, 2011 14:40:26 GMT -5
I also note that their article on Archaeopteryx contains a lot of quotes from Larry Martin and his followers, who are a tiny but vocal minority among scientists that claim birds are not dinosaurs. Their arguments have been shot to pieces by paleontologists, but it seems the creationists simply refuse to quote the opposition, giving the misleading impression that Martin and Friends have never been proven wrong.
It's also important to note that if you do read Martin's arguments in their entirety, he's actually trying to argue that birds evolved from primitive crocodile-like animals that lived alongside the first dinosaurs, not that they were created out of nothing by a supernatural being.
Yeah, there was this book that said, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor," but let's just ignore that for the sake of argument.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Sept 20, 2011 14:42:56 GMT -5
This is the guy I was talking about. To be fair, I guess he COULD just be plain out-of-date. That would also explain why I can't find him outside of Creationist blogs. I could comment on the examples he used, but QualiaSoup already explained them all away here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=W96AJ0ChboU&feature=relmfu
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Sept 20, 2011 15:03:42 GMT -5
Refuted? Again?
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Sept 20, 2011 18:49:57 GMT -5
Mongolism IS Down Syndrome, dipshit.
When you demonstrate a sufficient level of ignorance to think that an obsolete word for a genetic disorder is actually the name of a completely different disorder, you lose all credibility. Especially since the only places you ever find the word "mongolism" in the past 50 years or so ALL mention that it's called Down Syndrome now.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Sept 20, 2011 19:49:05 GMT -5
|
|
tempus
Full Member
Alien Ant Farmer
Posts: 212
|
Post by tempus on Sept 20, 2011 23:17:07 GMT -5
I also note that their article on Archaeopteryx contains a lot of quotes from Larry Martin and his followers, who are a tiny but vocal minority among scientists that claim birds are not dinosaurs. Their arguments have been shot to pieces by paleontologists, but it seems the creationists simply refuse to quote the opposition, giving the misleading impression that Martin and Friends have never been proven wrong. It's also important to note that if you do read Martin's arguments in their entirety, he's actually trying to argue that birds evolved from primitive crocodile-like animals that lived alongside the first dinosaurs, not that they were created out of nothing by a supernatural being. Yeah, there was this book that said, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor," but let's just ignore that for the sake of argument. [sarcasm] Why, it's almost as if he selectively cherry-picked statements and lifted quotes out of context so that he could try to make it look as if Martin and others were part of a massive groundswell of scientists arguing against evolution. But SURELY he has more integrity than THAT. [/sarcasm]
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Sept 21, 2011 0:15:41 GMT -5
How many times have they "debunked" evolution now?
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Sept 21, 2011 0:19:44 GMT -5
Isn't there a big thing about archeoptryx being a dinosaur now and not a bird?
|
|
|
Post by Random Guy on Sept 23, 2011 15:01:33 GMT -5
Isn't there a big thing about archeoptryx being a dinosaur now and not a bird? Yeah, it and a couple other extremely birdlike dinosaurs ( Xiaotingia and Anchiornis) seem to be early ancestral raptors instead of birds, with true birds not appearing until the Early Cretaceous. It is important to note, however, that this does not debunk the dinosaurian origin of birds, as no other group of animals possesses feathers and the most primitive birds like Jeholornis[/url] have all sorts of dinosaurian characteristics (sharp teeth, sickle claws, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Sept 23, 2011 17:02:06 GMT -5
Wait, when did this happen?
Oddly enough, that bird actually looks more like a dinosaur than archaeopteryx did.
|
|
|
Post by Random Guy on Sept 23, 2011 18:54:09 GMT -5
It happened a few weeks ago when Xiaotingia was described.
|
|
|
Post by John E on Sept 23, 2011 19:13:20 GMT -5
well wall mall mail sail tail toil boil bail basil basal nasal naval
EDIT: A better one
heaven haven raven ravel revel reel heel hell
|
|