Explain the Trilobite

Compare the average height and weight of humans with those living only 1000 years ago. The changes are sudden indeed.

 

That's definately a good point. But consider the evolution of the human over the last millenium contrasted to the evolution of science over the last millenium; with the advancement in technology progressing ever quicker I don't expect the next millenium to offer as much evolution as the last; evolution would be slowing down in a sense.

 

I agree advances in medicine have allowed some hereditary diseases to propagate, but technology also demands that humans adapt to it, thus spurring evolution in other ways.

 

You mean the playing field will be translated from the physical to the mental?

 

Its really important we understand what we mean when we use the term 'Evolution'.
I can assure you I do not play 'word games' with that and try and pour some other meaning into it or some sort of double-meanings into it (like talkorigins does).

Im talking 'the' very evolution that Evolutionists mean, want, need and what is the very core and controversy itself.
Evolution as in - at some point new genetic information adding itself.
Somehow, somewhere sometime.
Anywhere.

That as 'evolution' is not the 'side issue' or some sort of secondary issue and in fact it is 'the issue' and controversy itself.

There is no point debating about 'change' (if thats how you want the term to mean) and you wont get an argument from anyone that 'things change' and every day we see and observe;
Movement
Loss.

What we do NOT observe is new information ADDING itself.
New genetic information doesnt 'write itself' and then add itself into the code.
That would be your holy grail called 'Evolution' and allegedly it 'must' have happened billions of times over millions of years.
But,
Not only has nobody ever seen such a thing.... we cant even imagine how it could happen in theory.

To give you an idea just how little is out there - the 'best theory' is one that actually suggests that 'good mutations' must have happened enough and been selected enough times.
Wowzers.... not only does this theory die quickly from just the pure mathematical improbability.
(it would require near 'magic' probability)
but,
It doesnt even give any explanation for how 'new information' would occur.
Keeping in mind a mutation is just that - already existing info being twisted, duplicated, smushed and so on.

Again: You are fully free to believe that some sort of mechanism for evolution 'must' have existed.
But please do not mistakenly believe that its a real or known thing that is ever seen, observed etc.

 

The playing field is broadening in both aspects. Individuals are specializing in body and mind. To take a sports analogy, a top jockey would not do well as a Sumo wrestler, and top Sumo wrestlers are generally not great marathoners.

 

Ah, I see. Are you saying that due to evolution in mental aspects it is furthering physical evolution at a greater rate? Perhaps a 'smart evolution' sort of idea?

 

Yet another fallacy. Where do you get this shit?

Mutation is painfully slow and accounts for almost nil change. Sexual reproduction has been the primary driving force in evolution.

 

That is horrifically inaccurate. Natural selection takes the place of probability, ensuring that 'good mutations' reoccur. And you say that evolutionists believe that new information is being added from no where? Really? It doesn't say this anywhere in the evolution theory, where, pray tell, did you find such information? New information is due to mutation, not supplementation as you assume. If you don't acknowledge this, you are trying to disprove genetics, biology as a whole.

And I have yet to see you cite a source for your information. And no, your mind doesn't count.

 

In fact, mutations do not provide new information.
The only way anyone can worm a false presentation on this is to play 'definition games' with the word 'new'.

Mutations are exactly what they say they are - mutations. Already existing information that is twisted, warped, mutated.
This provides no truly 'new' information.
What Im telling you is a fact of life and everyone knows this full well regardless of their beliefs on origins.

What happens is that an Evo adds a 'theoretical' belief to the facts and amazingly suggests that 'somewhere, sometime, in some other world' that a mutation 'created' new information.
Not just twisted or botched versions of already existing info but 'somehow' a new 'letter' or 'number' was created.
This of course is fantasy.
Even if it happened there is certainly no reason for us to think it has or could have.
Actualy it would be a spectacular lucky guess that such a thing could ever happen since we actualy do see mutations being bad.
As in 99.9 bad.
So,
If our magic 'information building mutation' did ever exist it had to be happening at a rate faster than information was being lost.
Oh oh.

Not that anyone (Evos) actually believe incremental Mutation+Selection is how Evolution could have happened - even if the magical info-adding kind could exist.
The cold hard facts written in stone called the Fossil Record eliminated that idea.
Never mind the outrageous improbability (even given a magic info-building mutation).

btw.. that mutation plus selection crap is only given to high schoolers and a public at large because it seems to work in convincing them that evolution is fact based.
(most people will never think it through far enough).
In reality, Evolutionists dont actually believe that is how it happened.
Gould all but 'ex-communicated' any Evolutionists who still promote that idea.
But its still handy for public indoctrination or keeping uni students fighting for their cause on internet forums.
(as long as 'they think' it proves evolution then its 'good' to let them use it).

Dig.

 

You are, once again, wrong. An example; Ultra-violet rays emitted from the sun can mutate the DNA within your cells to create a form of cancer. You never had cancer cells growing before, now you do. This happens in meiosis when producing gametes; the chromosomes 'cross over' and exchange information creating new, individualistic phenotypes per gamete, giving millions of new possibilities; this is one way evolution is made possible.

You have not provided one shred of evidence supporting any of your information; you've made it very apparent you've taken on an Aristotlean way of thinking and trying to justify it by Newtonian means. You think just because it makes sense to you in your head it must be true, then you try and tell me it's proven scientific fact. You don't know the first thing about evolution. You continually present false information as fact; in the real world, that doesn't fly. Ya dig?

 

I wish you could just hear yourself right now heh!
Yes, you have evidence that mutations cause problems and in this case potentially lethal results.
So,
As we speak you actualy cite this as an example of how (somehow) this is actually evidence that mutations must have been how all life on earth was formed.

But seriously, the point you are making for me (again) is emboldened.
Yes indeed it does mutate already existing information.
Also its a 'bad thing'.

Right away you want to start arguing for evolution 'after' everything has allegedly evolved.
"lets say that 99.9% of evolution from abiogenesis to meiosis and lets start there.."
Yeah, you would be just beyond any belief to explain not only how evolution happened, got to sexes and then how is it that these gametes conveniently 'evolved' so that they have half the normal chromosome number?

Ok, so lets give you that evolution already happened so that it could make this mechanism by which evolution could happen.
(and this is what you just asked btw)

This one is tne is the 'word game' I predicted you have to go for - pouring a different meaning into the term 'new'.
See you do not have 'new information'.
You dont.
What you are saying is 'new combinations'.

Too bad for your belief that has nothing to do with the 'new information' that you need, should explain somehow and the new information you know that Im talking about too.

Let me make an analogy.

Lets say I have two halves of a deck of cards.
I can put them together and split them up again and get all sorts of 'new combinations'.
Repeat: I have a whole 'new' set of hands I can get.
Repeat: I have all sorts of new combination.

I guess 'technically' I can get away with telling you that cards evolved from this process because this process just proved to you I can get seemingly unlimited new combos.
Nope.

Whoa... lets take this analogy a bit closer and point out that every once in a while a number (information) on a card gets smeared a bit.
That '6' kinda looks like a small circly thing because it rubbed off a bit.
Ok.
So now I can come to you and say "see... this process of halving and recombinging cards does produce 'new information'.

I then suggest to you that given millions of shuffles a 'new card' will appear: The Goosh of Diamonds.
Right.

No, there is not 'new' information from the smudge/mutated card number and Im not demonstrating that by reshuffling/halving the cards Im creating 'new cards'.

The card analogy is sufficient enough to describe what you just described.
Then,
For no reason at all you just assert "This is one way evolution is made possible".
No.
I mean you can imagine that based on some 'extra theory' you imagine 'must' have happened that nobody knows about.
But,
Nothing you described gives you any reason to believe otherwise.

 

Card analogies are not sufficient. Especially the way you put it. Nor are alphabet analogies sufficient. Unless, I suppose, you are unfamiliar with the system you are talking about.

Don't try and simplify genetics, you're only confusing yourself.

 

Multiply how many bacteria there are by how many times a day they divide times three billion years and you will get some idea how many opportunities life has had to take advantage of the most minor variation - even accounting for the chances of a beneficial mutation is miniscule and the many many mass extinctions along the way - the incredible variety of lifeforms we have today is more than guaranteed.

 

Yes they are sufficient.
The only problem is that it doesnt even come close to approaching the amazing working complexity that is DNA and such.

Making magical evolution theories that much more impossible.

Again, reproduction does NOT create new information. Never mind how the information to get to reproduction in the first place could have ever occured heh.

 

You are putting words in my mouth. I never related my example past anything other than the fact that mutation create new information from the old, but not purely from the old, it took the UV radiation to change. I never even related it to evolution, and I sure as hell never said it had anything in common with the formation of life.

I ate a red apple today, that must mean all apples are red, right? This is a single example, not all mutations are bad, which is a relevant term and holds little meaning in science anyways.

Honestly, I cant make out what the hell you are trying to say there. Gametes have a haploid number of chromosomes because the cell divides, 46 / 2 = 23. I'm talking about the pachytene stage during prophase I of meiosis, not telophase I, you're not even on the same subject as I am.

And where exactly did I ask this?

A new combination equates to new information, I understand what it is you're trying to say and I'm not really disagreeing with you on this point.

The problem in your analogy is that once you split up the deck of cards you put them all back in again. During meiosis not all genes are passed form the parent cells to the daughter cells. Here would be a correct analogy:

You have a two deck of cards, one wich cards A, B, C, and D. The other has cards E, F, G, and H. You shuffle the decks with each other so it produces the combinations A, B, G, H and E, F, C, D. But each letter represents a gene which represents an physical attribute. Let's say the decks of cards represent the chromosomes of two fish reproducing. The first fish, deck 1, has larger fins that allow him to swim faster, but he has poorly functioning gills inhibiting his breathing. The fins are controlled by genes A and B and the gills are controlled by genes C and D. The second fish, deck 2, is just the opposite, small fins with great gills. The fins are controlled by genes E and F and the gills are controlled by genes G and H. During reproduction (shuffling the decks) the result ends up either ABGH or EFCD. This means that the offspring will have either really bad gills and really bad fins, or really great gills and really great fins, allowing him an advantage to survive and allowing him to pass on his genes.

Furthering my analogy: Now lets say during the reproduction an independent variation (mutation) occurs allowing the fish to have increased eye sight to help him find food. This furthers his ability to survive and allows him to pass on his genes during reproduction. Over thousands of years, the fish species could possibly evolve due to thousands of these mutations. You're analogy is flawed because they are only cards, not cells with the ability to vary independently.

Once again all you have succeeded in doing is showing us the (flawed) inner workings of your mind. You have not provided a shred of evidence and therefore don't hold a shred of credibility. Do some actual research, for god's sake.

 

No, they are not sufficient in any way, shape, or form.

 

Here you are agreeing with me (well with facts)

Yes you are agreeing that no new information is created.
You gotta punch yourself in the head over and over until you can understand that you want NEW information.
Not 'new combinations'.

At this point you have not done a single step towards anything even approaching any explanation for evolutionisms magical mechanism.
Ok.
Thats fine, we agree information already exists.
Excellent.

Now to where and how any evolution (new information) would come from.
Since you havent talked about that yet.
Oh look.. here you just do nothing but further your example of information existing and being recombined with an assertion that mutations + selection 'must' have happened somehow, somewhere:

Ok again, 'lets say the fish has increased eyesight'.
Yes.
Well thats amazing if a mutation caused increased eyesight but for starters there is no 'new information' being added.
You know that.
We have gone over this before in my example of having a 'mutation' in which I have LESS rods and cones.
Oddly enough, it happens that I can only see Yellow perfectly.
So,
In theory Im able to 'distinguish' a Yellow Stop sign faster and in theory am more likely to survive intersections, mate more and pass more mutations to kids.
I cant overemphasise this enough - I do NOT have 'new information' but in fact I have a 'loss'.
Yes I have a 'new combination' because ABDF is a 'new version' of ABCDF if I can scam up the word 'new' that way.

Look, I wish you could realise you are saying the things I 'put in your mouth' because you are saying these things:

"I believe that somewhere, sometime, for no reason other than from imagination that a truly new 'letter' created itself (somehow) and then added itself"

Seriously, that IS what you have just told me.
Its right up there.

Ive said this before, even though mutations are NOT NEW INFORMATION they happen.
99.9 bad to .01% 'good' and even that 'good' is pretty goofy to interpret (colour blindness).
Now,
You actualy KNOW THIS and yet you are willing to sit there and believe that the .01 (which is not new info but twisted, broken, smooshed etc already existing info) that this 'outran' 99.9 in order to take rock sludge to jellyfish, produce sexuality and then eventually human beings and badgers.

WOW!

 

The card analogy is flawed. DNA does mutate. Genetic comparison tests have been done between parents and siblings, and it clearly shows have mutations do occur and are common. DNA changes, that were not present in the parents, are found in the children. So yes there is new information, information that wasn't there before. I think if you understand chemistry, it would not seem like magic.

 

Please stop wasting time posting the same pretend assertion over and over again and pretending like I havent addressed the problem with your made-up conclusions.

For the last time you moron: DNA DOES FUCKING MUTATE FOR FUCKS SAKES!
I told YOU THAT.
Please STFU about DNA Mutating and stop pretending like fucking something up is the same as it having some sort of new features.
Your not fucking retarded so smarten up already.
Yeesh!