The Random Mutation Generator

[Slamdunk]

http://www.randommutation.com/darwinianevolution.htm

 

Have fun

[Dave]

Why? It's probably just another site trying to bring down Darwin (as if he is all there is to evolution) based on mythinformation.

 

Read this.

Then this.

There is more info on that site if you wish to learn more.

[D Laurier]

Of corse you do realize that darwinian evolution specificly states that random mutations do not lead to evolution.

That only SEXUAL SELECTION works, and sexual selection is utterly non random. It is directed by evolutionary drivers.

 

you do know that..... dont you ????

[webmdave]

Have more fun:

 

http://vanallens.com/exchristian/weasel/

[Slamdunk]

Of corse you do realize that darwinian evolution specificly states that random mutations do not lead to evolution.

 

[slam] Darwinian evolution was dead in the starting blocks. Natural selection and mutations do not produce new speciation. What's left? The current theory is now punctualism.

 

That only SEXUAL SELECTION works, and sexual selection is utterly non random. It is directed by evolutionary drivers.

 

[slam] Sexual selection works to do what?

 

you do know that..... dont you ????

 

[slam] What is an example of an evolutionary "driver?"

[Slamdunk]

Why? It's probably just another site trying to bring down Darwin (as if he is all there is to evolution) based on mythinformation.

 

Read this.

Then this.

There is more info on that site if you wish to learn more.

 

[slam] Neither site show where mutations resulted in one major kind evolving into a different kind (i.e. dinosaur into bird, land animal into whale, invertebrate into vertebrate, fish into reptile, etc.

[Dave]

Darwinian evolution was dead in the starting blocks. Natural selection and mutations do not produce new speciation. What's left? The current theory is now punctualism.

Do you know anything about modern biology? Have you even read anything written by Darwin? How about any written by modern biologists that actually have degrees in biology?

 

 

Neither site show where mutations resulted in one major kind evolving into a different kind (i.e. dinosaur into bird, land animal into whale, invertebrate into vertebrate, fish into reptile, etc.

They did if you had bothered to read them.

[Slamdunk]

 

Do you know anything about modern biology? Have you even read anything written by Darwin? How about any written by modern biologists that actually have degrees in biology?

 

Neither site show where mutations resulted in one major kind evolving into a different kind (i.e. dinosaur into bird, land animal into whale, invertebrate into vertebrate, fish into reptile, etc.

 

They did if you had bothered to read them.

 

[slam] Please cut and paste the section which says that one major kind evolving into a different Kind and what they were.

[nick5]

Please cut and paste the section which says that one major kind evolving into a different Kind and what they were.

 

This idiot is just trying to make you guys waste your time. If he was really interested, he'd read it himself and realize he was wrong.

It's funny how every time some moron tries to prove that evolution didn't happen, all he ends up doing is prove he doesn't understand how it happened.

Mhh... just like richard dawkins said...

[Slamdunk]

Please cut and paste the section which says that one major kind evolving into a different Kind and what they were.

 

This idiot is just trying to make you guys waste your time. If he was really interested, he'd read it himself and realize he was wrong.

It's funny how every time some moron tries to prove that evolution didn't happen, all he ends up doing is prove he doesn't understand how it happened.

Mhh... just like richard dawkins said...

 

[slam] Did you want to cut and paste the information?

[Dave]

Please cut and paste the section which says that one major kind evolving into a different Kind and what they were.

No. Go read the whole website. Learn something for once. I am not being paid to be your tutor.

 

 

Please cut and paste the section which says that one major kind evolving into a different Kind and what they were.

This idiot is just trying to make you guys waste your time. If he was really interested, he'd read it himself and realize he was wrong.

It's funny how every time some moron tries to prove that evolution didn't happen, all he ends up doing is prove he doesn't understand how it happened.

Mhh... just like richard dawkins said...

Don't worry, that he knows nothing about evolution, or science in general, is glaringly obvious. To "cut and paste" one small bit about evolution would prove a useless task. He has no grasp on the subject and he has no framework in which to place the info so that he could understand any of it.

[Legion]

Okay Slam, I hope to eventually return to the subject of speciation but I think it may be worth it to put that aside for the moment and address some other issues. We have now carried this conversation throughout various threads, so this has been somewhat disorganized.

 

You mentioned something about sincerity and I hope that we sincerely desire to understand. I hope that these discussions do not degrade into a shouting match (i.e. "We evolved", "No we didn't", "yes we did", no we didn't", etc., etc.).

 

I would like to momentarily address what may be some reasons for accepting or rejecting the veracity of evolution that have more to do with the implictions of it rather than on the merits of the evidence.

 

The biggest or main reason that I was able to come up with to accept evolution as valid that has little to do with its merits is the following. 1) Perhaps some feel that it provides a convenient excuss to abandon a god that might otherwise hold us accountable for our "sins."

 

I was able to come up with more for rejecting evolution. 1) It disagrees with the ancient text of a people that had comparatively little understanding of the natural world. 2) It leaves open the possibilty that people are somehow special, above, or distinct from the rest of the natural world. 3)It leaves open the possibilty that people may not be beholden to the same cycles of life and particularly death that other animals are. If others can think of more reasons then I would love to hear them.

 

So what do you think Slam? Why do you feel that I have accepted evolution as truthful if it disagrees with the evidence? Surely there must be some reason why I would prefer a lie over the truth.

[Dave]

.....I was able to come up with more for rejecting evolution. 1) It disagrees with the ancient text of a people that had comparatively little understanding of the natural world. 2) It leaves open the possibilty that people are somehow special, above, or distinct from the rest of the natural world. 3)It leaves open the possibilty that people may not be beholden to the same cycles of life and particularly death that other animals are. If others can think of more reasons then I would love to hear them.

 

So what do you think Slam? Why do you feel that I have accepted evolution as truthful if it disagrees with the evidence? Surely there must be some reason why I would prefer a lie over the truth.

I think you got it right. They believe that if evolution were true that we would be taken out of the center of attention in the Universe. Being created by this god makes us special and above all the other animals. That same crowd is thoroughly convinced that without a belief in god that there will be no basis for moral behavior. Their rejection of evolution has nothing to do with the science, but everything to do with their religious beliefs.

[Skankboy]

Slam,

 

You seem to be fixated on mutation not being able to go from one "kind" to another. Would you be so kind as to define "kind" so we may have a better chance of finding the data you're looking for?

 

thanks

[lothartx]

http://www.randommutation.com/darwinianevolution.htm

 

Have fun

 

 

Yet another fundie site showing total lack of understanding of evolution. Predictable and boring....

 

You forgot to factor in natural selection. I could easily show you how a computer could randomly wright a sonnet from Shakespeare using random letter placements and selecting only those that fit and "extincting" those that didn't. Takes about a day and half, if I remember correctly.

 

Slam, you don't want to learn, you only want to poke holes. You are wasting your time and ours.

 

Slam,

 

Please explain why god makes bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Since you find evolution false, god must be actively modifying bacteria. Why does bacteria slowly become more resistant? God can't get it right the first time? If he is a loving and perfect god, why did he create bacteria that is fatal to other living things?

 

You make me think of a saying I heard one time.

 

Two men walk up to a hole in ground filled with ice. In the middle of the ice, a stick is poking up like a popsicle stick.

The first man lifts the ice from the hole and exclaims "Look how the ice perfectly matches the hole in the ground. That can't have happened by accident, God must have made the ice to match hole!"

 

The second, being more skeptical, melted the ice and poured it back into hole. He said "Look how the water has formed and adapted to it's environment!"

 

Who is right?

[D Laurier]

Darwinian evolution was dead in the starting blocks. Natural selection and mutations do not produce new speciation. What's left? The current theory is now punctualism.

Darwinial evolution is evolution by sexual selection, It is hardly dead, the principles of sexual selection are vastly better understood now than in Darwin's day. But those principles are still regarded as valid by modern biologists. Natural sexual selection of beneficial mutations does with environmental change and genetic isolation of sub populations, produce speciation. The curent theory is still Evolution by sexual selection, however punctuated equilibriun is considered to be one of the main frameworks under which sexual selection opperates

 

Sexual selection works to do what?

Determining which individuals will pass on their genetic traits and characteristics, (ie their mutations)

 

What is an example of an evolutionary "driver?"

Environmental change,

 

Maybe you need to actualy study some biology before you go making huge claims about it

[narcissist]

Meh. Just another creationist website.

No understanding of evolution at all.

[Slamdunk]

 

Natural sexual selection of beneficial mutations does with environmental change and genetic isolation of sub populations, produce speciation.

 

[slam] What example are you aware of where a series of beneficial mutations produced a major kind different than the one it was?

 

Sexual selection works to do what?

 

Determining which individuals will pass on their genetic traits and characteristics, (ie their mutations)

 

[slam] Again, please cite one major kind that mutated into a different major kind.

 

What is an example of an evolutionary "driver?"

 

Environmental change,

 

[slam] How does environmental change act upon structure to change it? What is the mechanism?

 

 

 

 

 

Meh. Just another creationist website.

No understanding of evolution at all.

 

"In fact,the fossil record does not convincingly document a SINGLE TRANSITION (emph added) from one species to another." S. M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, 1981) p. 95

 

The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.”

[steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, W. H. Freeman and Co., New York, 1979, p. 39]

[Dave]

[slam] What example are you aware of where a series of beneficial mutations produced a major kind different than the one it was?

I know this is a waste of time, but here goes:

 

Lucy to us.

[slam] Again, please cite one major kind that mutated into a different major kind.

Read this.

[slam] How does environmental change act upon structure to change it?

It doesn't.

What is the mechanism?

Change in DNA over time.

 

"In fact,the fossil record does not convincingly document a SINGLE TRANSITION (emph added) from one species to another." S. M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, 1981) p. 95

He is being deliberately, and dishonestly, misquoted, but then creationists are not known for their intellectual honesty.

Gould and his colleagues are widely cited by creationists in their effort to establish that the fossil record documents "no transitions." To creationists this is taken to mean that there are no evolutionary links between "created kinds." But Gould, Eldredge and Stanley are talking about the failure of the fossil record to document fine-scale transitions between pairs of species, and its dramatic documentation of rapid evolutionary bursts involving multiple speciation events -- so-called adaptive radiations. They are not talking about any failure of the fossil record to document the existence of intermediate forms (to the contrary, there are so many intermediates for many well-preserved taxa that it is notoriously difficult to identify true ancestors even when the fossil record is very complete). Nor are Gould, Eldredge, and Stanley talking about any failure of the fossil record to document large-scale trends, which do exist, however jerky they may be. Furthermore, fine-scale transitions are not absent from the fossil record but are merely underrepresented. Eldredge, Gould. and Stanley reason that this is the unsurprising consequence of known mechanisms of speciation. Additionally, certain ecological conditions may favor speciation and rapid evolution, so new taxa may appear abruptly in the fossil record in association with adaptive radiation. Since creationists acknowledge that fine-scale transitions (including those resulting in reproductive isolation) exist and since the fossil record clearly documents large-scale "transitions," it would seem that the creationists have no case. Indeed. they do not. Their case is an artifact of misrepresentation to the lay public of exactly what the fossil record fails to document. Source

I wonder why creationists have to lie in order to support their religious beliefs?

[D Laurier]

sorry slamdunk, What is a "kind"????/ or a "major kind"?????

 

When did I ever suggest that "structure" was even relevent to genetic variability????

[Skankboy]

I've asked for a definition of "kind" on several occassions. I've yet to get one...

[Legion]

I've asked for a definition of "kind" on several occassions. I've yet to get one...

Yes, many of us are waiting for a definition of that one.

[D Laurier]

'Kind';

A meaningless buzzword used by creationists exclusivly and specificly because its in the bible.

[neverclear5]

Evolution isn't random. We get a random change and then we take the best one, it's that simple. If the one we had to start with is better this time then it stays the same. If one of the mutations is better then we change it. We don't start with aq sentence and work backwords because every step from that point will make the sentence worse. Thats why we don't have animals with wheels or other rotary parts. Each small step has to be benificial and an animal with a big growth that can't yet spin is not benifited by it.

[Jedah]

It's funny how every time some moron tries to prove that evolution didn't happen, all he ends up doing is prove he doesn't understand how it happened.

 

yep...