Creationists Believe the Darndest Things

Then why are you arguing

Why do I have to provide alternative theory to disprove the one you claim to be scientifically valid?

And how does my not making up an alternative theory make me an idealist?

So far I hear you stating "it is genuine" without providing anything scientifically valid to substantiate what you claim.

Do you yourself know what exactly you are saying?

No, that's not the "seed of complaint" as far as Spetner's refutation of Darwin's theory of evolution is concerned.
It is apparent that you don't even know what your argument is against.

 

"Evolutionists assume that the observed ability of organisms like finches and bacteria to adapt to altered environments is clear proof of the NDT, which holds that random mutations in the DNA molecule are a prime factor in these adaptations. But this inference is negated by compelling new evidence at every level of biology according to Spetner, whose credentials include an MIT doctorate in physics, expertise in molecular biology, and published papers on biology in prestigious scientific journals. Numerous experiments are cited indicating many of these survival modifications are linked to a particular class of nonrandom mutations responding on cue to specific changes in the environment."

Would that be his complaint?

 

What i do not like is that you appear to come across as if you are saying we should throw out evolutionary theory because neo-darwinism (a very old theory that is dated and obsolete) provides an implausible mechanism for accumulation of DNA

 

Whether you like or don't like how I appear or come accross is irrelevant to unavoidable matter of fact that Darwin's theory of evolution is not scientifically valid one unless it can be proven to the contrary.

Here is another useful quote from Spetner:

 

So are you claiming that evolution is not scientifically valid?

How have you discredited it, what part of the theory are you disputing, what doesen't work when you think of evolution?

 

I have posted it earlier. Apparently you missed it, so I will just re-post it again for you




Originally posted on 08/28/09 03:16 AM

========================================================

Following is not my understanding of quantitative analysis, but word to word quote from Spetners exchange with Edward Max (btw, it is fairly easy to understand):

"Spetner: The theoretical argument is the following. Evolution requires a long series of steps each consisting of an adaptive mutation followed by natural selection. In this series, each mutation must have a higher selective value than the previous. Thus, the evolving population moves across the adaptive landscape always rising toward higher adaptivity. It is generally accepted that the adaptive landscape is not just one big smooth hill with a single Maximum, but it is many hills of many different heights. Most likely, the population is on a hill that is not the highest in the landscape. It will then get stuck on a local Maximum of adaptivity and will not be able to move from it. This is particularly likely because the steps it takes are very small - only one nucleotide change at a time. The problem is compounded by the lack of freedom of a single nucleotide substitution to cause a change in the encoded amino acid. A single nucleotide substitution does not have the potential to change an amino acid to any one of the other 19. In general, its potential for change is limited to only 5 or 6 others. To evolve off the “dead point” of adaptivity, a larger step, such as the simultaneous change of more than one nucleotide, is required. Moreover, the probability is close to 1 that a single mutation in a population, even though it is adaptive, will disappear without taking over the population (see my book, Chapter 3). Therefore, many adaptive mutations must occur at each step.

The hypermutation in the B cells does this. It achieves all possible single, double, and triple mutations for the immune system, which allows them to obtain the information necessary to match a new antigen. Ordinary mutations, at the normal low rate, cannot add this information - even over long times. I shall explain why. Consider a population of antigen-activated B cells of, say, a billion individuals. In two weeks, there will be about 30 generations. Let’s say the population size will remain stable, so in two weeks there will be a total of 30 billion replications. With a mutation rate of 1 per 1000 nucleotides per replication, there will be an average of 30 million changes in any particular nucleotide during a two-week period. The probability of getting two particular nucleotides to change is one per million replications. Thus in two weeks, there will be an average of 30 thousand changes in any two particular nucleotides. There will be an average of 30 changes in any three particular nucleotides.

How many generations, and how long, would it take to get a particular multiple nucleotide change in a germ cell to have an effect on Neo-Darwinian evolution? Here, the mutation rate is about one per billion nucleotides per replication. Let’s suppose we're doing this experiment with a population of a billion bacteria. Then, in one generation, there will be an average of one change in a particular base. A particular double base change has a probability of one per quintillion, or 10-18. To get one of these would take a billion generations, or about 100,000 years. To get a triple change would take 1014, or a hundred trillion, years. That is why a long waiting time cannot compensate for a low mutation rate. I've given numbers here for a laboratory experiment with bacteria. Many more mutations would be expected world-wide. But the same kind of thing has to happen under NDT with multicelled animals as well. With vertebrates, for example, the breeding populations seldom exceed a few thousand. Multicelled animals would have many fewer mutations than those cited above for bacteria".

 

I said brief,

 

Brief?
Sure: the odds are impossibly long.

 

But if the amount of time we are talking about is infinite are not all things not only possible but destined to repeat and infinite amount of times?

 

But it is not.
It is not assumed that our universe is infinitely old and theory of evolution itself does not claim that it took infinitely long time for species to evolve , but only a few billions of years.

It's pointless to ask if something could happen certain way again if it hasn't happened that way in the first place, but I will answer your question anyway.

No, things such as your individual birth, life and every occurence in your daily life can not repeat infinite amounts of time even in infinitely long time (this is what F.N. thought but he understandably was not aware of principles of quantum mechanics when he wrote it, relying on classical model of physics instead).

 

Your right, I'm high, and when I used the infinite amount of possibilities/time theory I was thinking backward. I already knew that but you got me on that one,

So are you claiming that the theory of evolution could not be possible on Earth, or are you just pointing out that Evolution and Bio Genesis are just two separate theories?

Sorry if I'm understanding you falsely.

 

Hehehehe, you are high and you are claiming that Darwin's theory of evolution is scientifically valid one. Why am I not surprised!

 

I do believe that Darwin's theory is scientifically valid.

You offered no reason as to why it should not be considered valid, instead you went on a rant about bio genesis.

By life you must be thinking simple microbes or something, I can't understand your reasoning to call Darwin's theory unsound for once life begins.

Evolution is not meant to explain the origins of life it's used to track it's progress once it develops

 

Not only you are high but you are also lacking the reading comprehension skills.

All you do is say "I do believe that Darwin's theory is scientifically valid".
But you have not made a single coherent argument to substantiate your claim.

Unfortunately for Darwin and followers of his religious movement neither your being high nor your lack of reading comprehension skills won't prove that Darwin's theory of evolution is indeed a scientifically valid one.

 

are you basing this on the fact that darwinian evolution is solely based on random mutations in the germ line?

 

Is there a better theory than evolution? I mean really?

The next runner up is that an old white male in the sky made everything in six days.

Look at the vast quantities of organisms in the world.

Organisms that live underground don't have any eyes because they have no need for them.

Organisms that live in the water have no legs because they have no need for them.

Organisms that live on land don't have gills because they don't need them.

EVERYTHING has evolved to ensure survival in their surroundings.

Evolution cannot be completely proved. However, to explain how life has reached the stage that it is in today, evolution is the best explanation. It is rational, reasonable, and doesn't rely on an outside force.

You know how people explain shit they don't understand? God(s) did it. This isn't the dark ages anymore, please stop using archaic beliefs because you have trouble coping with how shitty life really is.

 

it really does not appear that you know the material, as you keep quoting passages where speltner is contesting dated theories of the driver behind evolution.

Random mutations being the sole driver IS INTRODUCTORY INFORMATION.
If you spend time in any scientific discipline you realise that they teach you the simplier theories before they bring out the more complicated ones. Neo-darwinian theory is not considered complex, ie IT IS NOT EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. It is the historical basis, NOT THE FACTUAL BASIS

 

It's irrelevant to the fact that Darwin's theory of evolution is not scientifically valid one.

And just because you have a religious faith in it's validity does not make it scientifically valid one.

 

Go ahead and prove that:

A) You know the material

B) That Darwin's theory of evolution is indeed scientifically valid one.

You make the claim so you are the one obliged to prove it.

 

It was an expression. Evolution is a valid theory.