The Evolution Myth

[Robert Newman]

Hi there Sunwaiter,

Yes, we see that the White Lion is white in colour because of a mutation. And we see in the same article that -

This coloration gives white lions a distinct disadvantage in nature because they are highly visible.

A clear example of the well known fact that all mutations (being errors in the transmission of genetic information), are not advantageous.

The same article says -

White lions remain rare in the wild and only occur when two lions carrying the mutant gene are mated together

Thanks for the article entitled -

"Adaptation to Growth in the Dark by Chlamydomonas.

Chlamydomonas is a unicellular green algae capable of photosynthesis in light, but also somewhat capable of growth in the dark by using acetate as a carbon source. Graham Bell cultured several clonal lines of Chlamydomonas in the dark for several hundred generations. Some of the lines grew well in the dark, but other lines were almost unable to grow at all. The poor growth lines improved throughout the course of the experiment until by 600 generations they were well adapted to growth in the dark. This experiment showed that new, beneficial mutations are capable of quickly (in hundreds of generations) adapting an organism that almost required light for survival to growth in the complete absence of light."

Yes, yes ! But the author of that article has made a serious mistake. It's very clear that this organism benefits a great deal from having the ability to live in the dark of its environment. In fact, the title of the article clearly says this is not 'evolution' at all. Nor is it due to 'mutation'. Instead, (as the title of the article itself indicates) it's a clear case of a species ADAPTING. Not mutating. The species in question is rapidly adapting to its unusual environment. But it remains, of course, the same species. These remarkable changes to new environments happen all the time in nature. They are part of what species do all the time. There are many, many examples of marine creatures adapted to living without light, for example. Species can and do adapt in amazing ways. But, again, this adaptive ability has been known for thousands of years and has nothing to do with 'mutations' (i.e. with errors in the transmission of genetic information). It is by the laws of heredity that these populations in these environments can and do adapt to such environments.

Notice how the author still says -

'Beneficial mutations are capable of quickly (in hundreds of generations) adapting an organism that almost required light for survival to growth in the complete absence of light."

Again, this is wrong. He is confusing adaption with mutation. The ability of this algae to quickly adapt to its environment has absolutely nothing to do with mutations. This is a clear case of orderly and always beneficial adaption. In this case, adaption to an environment without light.

(By the way, algae are presented in many Darwinian textbooks as being the 'simplest' and most ancient 'ancestors' of many species. In actual fact algae are amazingly complex and are a clear example of how the very same species we see today in nature existed even at the time when the first fossils were formed. The little algae show us this clearly. Fossils of many algae are as you know found in even Cambrian and other rock formations worldwide. No 'evolution' there ! The very same algae species are alive and well today everywhere in the seas of the world. A more clear example of the permanence of species would be hard to find).


Regards

[Andrew Roussak]

I think the following quotation matches very good with the last post of Robert -

taken from an article 'How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution' published in Washington Post on 08/01/1998, under an authorship of Mr. Boyce Rensberger, the editor of The Horizon section.

I have read the article and the critique of it. The peppered moth is an argument really often used by the evolutionists in debates -

> Strictly speaking, evolution is simply a change in
> the frequency with which specific genes occur in
> population. By this token, there is the well known
> example of the peppered moth of Britain.
> In 1848, 98 percent of these moths were gray, a color
> that hid them from birds when they perched on gray
> lichens that covered tree trunks. Darker winged variants
> were rare and tended to be eaten by birds. then as the
> Industrial Revolution's smokestacks killed the lichens
> and darkened tree trunks, the gray moths stood out and
> were eaten while the darker mutants survived.
> Gradually, the moth became a predominantly
> darkwinged species and, by 1898, gray individuals were
> less than 5 percent of the total. Now that air pollution
> controls have taken effect, lichens are growing back, and
> the peppered moth again is becoming a chiefly gray
> species.
> In that case, evolution by natural selection
> occurred but did not create a new species. Grey moths
> still could interbreed with black moths, proving that
> they belonged to the same species.

As you see, the author postulates himself in the last sentence that the general evolution did not take place here. I cannot imagine that mr. Rensberger is not an expert in his subject - then, why does he obscure the matter?

[Robert Newman]

Yes Andrew,

The famous 'peppered moth'. Propagandists portrayed this too as an example of 'evolution'. Once again, it's a clear case of adaption. The same moths reverting back to the colour best suited to their environment when the black soot of pollution was reduced. And, once again, the confusion is seen in using the term 'mutants'. Such things are really not examples of mutation.

And so we come 'full circle' with the evolutionist now defining 'evolution' as 'adaption' - the two terms synonomous ! But adaption is not dependent on errors in the transmission of genetic information.

Regards and thanks

Robert

[sunwaiter]

hi again.

i had never heard of mr Rensberger. i guess he'll be on my "research list "too!

"This coloration gives white lions a distinct disadvantage in nature because they are highly visible.

A clear example of the well known fact that all mutations (being errors in the transmission of genetic information), are not advantageous."

why "all"?

and, does that mean that this animal is condemned? i don't think so. to say that the white color doesn't help camouflage doesn't mean he won't eat at all! to say what is advantageous or not is just a judgment we make following our criters and what we've seen of this animal until now. what I think is that the white lion can... adapt to this color. do you think this lion will starve because it's white? i've read this article before posting it, so i had noticed this particular point (the camouflage thing) and sent it especially because of this, in addition to the fact that it is a clear exemple of a non-nefast mutation.

"White lions remain rare in the wild and only occur when two lions carrying the mutant gene are mated together"

does this mean that the white lion has no chance at all to spread in greater number on earth? or can it happen only on a long term?


"(By the way, algae are presented in many Darwinian textbooks as being the 'simplest' and most ancient 'ancestors' of many species. In actual fact algae are amazingly complex and are a clear example of how the very same species we see today in nature existed even at the time when the first fossils were formed. The little algae show us this clearly. Fossils of many algae are as you know found in even Cambrian and other rock formations worldwide. No 'evolution' there ! The very same algae species are alive and well today everywhere in the seas of the world. A more clear example of the permanence of species would be hard to find)."

i never understood evolution as meaning death of all animals, once the use-by-date is passed. animals are not cans of beans. a creature that has what it takes to exist in a certain environment will continue to exist. we know about crocodiles already, and other well-built organisms, that were here before us, of course, just like the algae.

it's true that this article is not specific enough. but the author says that mutations can help adaptation of a creature to a new environment. that's why he used the verb adaptation. we can't allow ourselves some wordplay. i will try to find other more precise and better-written document anyway.

(by the way, you know the algae we're talking about has "flagelles". it remembers me you didn't tell me what you think exactly about the falegellum thing, that ken miller describes in the video i posted. i'm sorry to go back again on it, but it's true that i found it very very interesting. if i understood it properly, the flagellum was supposed to be of an irreducible complexity, but mr Miller sounds legitimate when he demonstrates it is not).

i'm always scared of getting confused, and it's late here so i will just post one more link where we can find a recapitulative text about adaptation.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...alifying.shtml

please, let me know what you think about the vole. i still don't know exactly what to think about this cute little rodent.

g'nite or g'day!



music to go to bed:

symphonie gothique - widor
http://www.deezer.com/track/1272329

naima - lonnie liston smith
http://www.deezer.com/track/1047253

pahari dhun - unknown to me
http://www.deezer.com/track/1938751



www.myspace.com/olivortex

[Robert Newman]

You ask why mutations are disadvantageous. Here's the short answer.

Mutations are disadvantageous in the same way that traffic accidents are disadvantageous. Again, hand grenade explosions within confined spaces are disadvantageous to those living in proximity to them. Bullet wounds are disadvantageous to those who may receive them. There may of course be people who speculate otherwise but they have difficulty learning anything ! And all mutations are disadvantageous to organisms which have them. Because mutations are (as said before) errors which have occurred within a very complex code of genetic information. They are deleterious, harmful and bad news. Nobody in the entire history of science has ever found one which is advantageous. And nature knows a lot better than evolutionists - it even has a system of getting rid of them. Consider that !! It's called 'reverse mutation'. I guess that's called 'check-mate', yes ?

So says science. But if you want more examples or analogies, just ask. We should leave evolutionists to speculate on mutations and on 'evolution' while the rest of mankind (and of science) gets on with reality. We should even allow them to build schools and colleges. And they have done so ! LOL !!! Can't get more tolerant than that, can we ?

Can you imagine a restaurant whose new chef writes a menu for a new restaurant, one item on sale being - ''a special soup of my own discovery made from the shadow of a chicken'' ? Nor should we entertain the idea of beneficial mutations. LOL !

Thanks for asking about the vole. It has no relevance to the issue under discussion unless, of course, you can show differently.

Thanks for the musical tracks etc.

Regards

[Andrew Roussak]

Hi sunwaiter,

I believe there is simply a general misunderstanding here what the term "deleterious mutations" means. It doesn't mean they are killing. The core of a question is, the mutations as such can not bring any qualitatitively NEW genetic information. You have only the information you have inherited from your parents, they in turn from theirs etc.

In the context of this discussion, you would need a sufficiently NEW information that will give for example the lion some perfectly NEW quality ( simply changing the colour to white is not enough. Right answer would be, the lion gets wings and can fly ). This is an information which is necessary to make a transition like for example "fish-amphibia" possible. But genetics says you can only inherit or lose, not gain on this way.

You may want to google or to look in wikipedia for a "mitochondrial Eve"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
theory. It says , to cut it very short, that all of us people must have a common female ancestor ( who was evtl. called Eve ) and had to posess, in fact, the complete information. You may want to see the story in the Biblical context or not, as you like, but the common idea is, once again - the general informational trend due to mutations is downwards, not upwards.

[sunwaiter]

hi Andrew! the mitochondrial eve theory is interesting, and has to be dug, as i found some press reviews about it, that merely said we shouldn't pass over it too quick. i also do believe i should read more about it.

Robert: once again, i don't believe it's about being check mate, three goals to zero, or anything like this. i know you said this as an image, but i find it too much "competition-like" to be included in a discussion about science (wether your interlocutor knows much about the topic or not).

another link. is it mutation? adaptation? no matter the word you will choose, i personnally accept the first one when it comes to this example:
http://www.uwyo.edu/krist/misc/sse_poster_june06.pdf

and here you'll find "une concession" and "un compromis". is it called "trade-off" in english? i guess i rejoiced too fast about my improving in shakespeare's language.

"Though Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859, and its picture of the long term process of evolution was widely accepted within 15 years, the mechanism of natural selection was not accepted for decades: Darwin could provide no evidence that such a mechanism could work. The field of genetics, which has provided a large portion of this evidence, was in its infancy at time Darwin was writing Origin. Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics, did not publish his famous findings on inheritance in pea plants until 1866, and even then he was largely ignored for nearly 40 years. However, once genetics began to move forward into its modern form, natural selection became a much more viable mechanism for evolution, though with new scientific knowledge some modifications needed to be made to Darwin's original idea. In the 1930's and 40's several major works on evolution were published, including Genetics and the Origin of Species by Theodosius Dobzhansky, Systematics and the Origin of Species by Ernst Mayr, and Evolution: a Modern Synthesis by Julian Huxley (brother to Aldous Huxley, author of A Brave New World). These bookst attempted to make sense of Darwin's theory in light of the evidence for evolution found in genetics and other fields (see Evidence for Evolution). The resulting theory of evolution became known as neo-Darwinism, the synthetic theory of evolution, or the modern synthesis. Below are the main tenets of the modern synthesis. Today most of these are still accepted, though some, most notably the gradual rate of evolution, have come under fire in recent years."

it was took in sparknotes.com, quite in support of the evolution theory of course.

time goes too fast, i don't have the time to put the finishing touches to this post. anyway i'll document myself and try to find and bring new things worth the reading, or observing, or hearing.

thank you, as always.


since it's become a habit, and it doesn't take much time, here's for you all:

http://www.deezer.com/track/26791

http://www.deezer.com/track/27606

[Robert Newman]

Hi there Sunwaiter,

Surely the whole point of learning is to learn. Why would anyone waste their time on believing and teaching things which have no evidence whatsoever if evidence is really the deciding issue ?

Theories are based on facts. And it's facts which either provide support for theories built on them or they do not. The last century and more has delivered its verdict. 'Evolution theory' shows every sign of being constructed on completely false assumptions - the dogmatic assumption being made from the outset by Darwin and his disciples that the 'evolution of species' MUST have happened. Well, compelling evidence from many sciences, real science, says it didn't. Such evidence as we have is completely consistent with the view that species have simply not evolved from others.

After 150 years of this failed myth of pagan philosophy, of Darwinism and 'neo-Darwinism' dominating colleges and centres of learning isn't it time, isn't it really honest, that those who teach it 'ad nauseum' should throw in the towel and admit there is no factual basis for it ?

To now suggest Genetics has provided support for the 'evolution of species' is ludicruous when it has provided the very opposite. It was Genetics and the laws which apply to all species which were rubbished and suppressed for decades, by Darwinists themselves ! Really ! It becomes ridiculous.

There is simply no natural process to produce new species. It's simply nonsense. Sorry, but that is the plain fact of it.

I hope you will use, as the foundation of what you learn and even what you may teach, that which is already clearly and honestly established in these areas of study. Not as the conclusion to your studies but as their foundation.

Best wishes always, of course !

Robert

[Andrew Roussak]

and here you'll find "une concession" and "un compromis". is it called "trade-off" in english? i guess i rejoiced too fast about my improving in shakespeare's language.

"Though Darwin published his Origin of Species in 1859, and its picture of the long term process of evolution was widely accepted within 15 years, the mechanism of natural selection was not accepted for decades: Darwin could provide no evidence that such a mechanism could work. The field of genetics, which has provided a large portion of this evidence, was in its infancy at time Darwin was writing Origin. Gregor Mendel, the father of modern genetics, did not publish his famous findings on inheritance in pea plants until 1866, and even then he was largely ignored for nearly 40 years. However, once genetics began to move forward into its modern form, natural selection became a much more viable mechanism for evolution, though with new scientific knowledge some modifications needed to be made to Darwin's original idea. In the 1930's and 40's several major works on evolution were published, including Genetics and the Origin of Species by Theodosius Dobzhansky, Systematics and the Origin of Species by Ernst Mayr, and Evolution: a Modern Synthesis by Julian Huxley (brother to Aldous Huxley, author of A Brave New World). These bookst attempted to make sense of Darwin's theory in light of the evidence for evolution found in genetics and other fields (see Evidence for Evolution). The resulting theory of evolution became known as neo-Darwinism, the synthetic theory of evolution, or the modern synthesis. Below are the main tenets of the modern synthesis. Today most of these are still accepted, though some, most notably the gradual rate of evolution, have come under fire in recent years."

Hi sunwaiter,

fine.. But I don't see somehow how a scientific knowledge can ever be a matter of trade-off, or fair deal, whatever...It works or it doesn't work. Yes, I know what neo-Darwinism is about, and you know my point of view - it is an ideology. Atheism needs a scientifical, or pseudo-scientifical basis to justify its existence , which means it needs an ET in the first line. I don't see - most frankly and honestly - any other explanation.

I would be actually very thankful, if somebody helps me to understand, how can fish evolve to amphibia. Or how can reptile evolve to a bird. I simply can't get it, and the evolutionists are of no help here anyway, because they don't offer more than airbrush pictures like those given in the school books. Btw - can you try to explain it to yourself, how the transformations of such kind may have happened ( even supposing we had no idea of genetics etc. ) ?

Cheers ant thanks,
Andrew

[Robert Newman]

This is a rare discussion on 'evolution theory'. (Most discussions on this subject are suppressed on the media and in colleges).

Readers may not know much about these issues. That's OK. It doesn't really matter. The important thing is there IS and always has been an alternative to evolution theory. An alternative which can be demonstrated to be correct, over and over again. By science. Species are not evolving in to other species. They are in fact phenomenally stable and permanent features of living nature. Nor have they ever done so. No matter how long time we talk about it a given species will continue to exist as that specific species. Species are an integral part of the living world in the same way that the chemical elements are a permanent feature of our world also. They may change their forms. They may adapt to new environments. But each species belongs to its own set of other species, known as the 'genus', and every seed really does bring forth (only) according to its own kind - i.e. according to its membership of the genus. Truths confirmed by modern science. Confirming, once again, the wisdom of what has been known since early human antiquity.

Many thanks to Sunwaiter and to Andrew.

[sunwaiter]

Robert:

"I hope you will use, as the foundation of what you learn and even what you may teach, that which is already clearly and honestly established in these areas of study. Not as the conclusion to your studies but as their foundation."

i still find you're too categoric (uh i don't know if this word means the same as in french, but it wasn't about any taxonomy! ) in your statements, because it seems that what we call a foundation, as a knowledge, can be completed, just as a legitimate law can be completed or counterpointed by a new discovery. the feeling i get reading you is that you know what you're talking about 'and it's true), but in some way you sound impatient to put an end to research progression, or to any alternatives that might, if one day confirmed, cancels the "reality" you mention. i hope i'm wrong about this feeling, but you get the idea. it seems biology needs to get more knowledge, just like in Buffon, Lamrack, Darwin and Mendel's times.

Anyway be sure i'm glad you share your ideas the way you do.

as for the vole: i simply found its main specificity (the one described in the article i sent) quite astonishing, though i still don't have any precise idea of what can be said
about it. maybe later i will.

[sunwaiter]

Andrew:

i don't think "atheism", "christianism" or any other "ism", not even "evolutionism", i just try to think as a man, a living creature (whoever or whatever has created me).

fossils that are found more or less regularly over the world are one of the means of showing there MAY has been an evolution. the mutation theory is another one, supported by people who display their experiments, their discoveries, often (but not always, that is true) in a very humble way, that is to say the way of the one who's looking to learn why, how, when, etc.

oops gotta take my clothes back in the machine. see you soon!

[sunwaiter]

hello again!

well i've been looking for more documentation that i could read without having the sensation that i'm too gullible.

As Corno Dolce stated once, the French education chain is not bad at all.
i work in a university that's specialized in science, so i can find some documents when i have the time. here are excerpts from a book simply called "Genetique, Des lois de Mendel à la biologie moléculaire" / "Genetics, from Mendel's laws to molecular biology" by Peter J Russell. it is one of the manuals used by the students here. i translated them myself as properly as i could:

chapter 1:

"which demands must genetic material satisfy?

the genetic material has a major importance in the cell functioning and therefore must fulfill a certain number of conditions:

- it must contain the information necessary for the structure, the function and the stability of cell reproduction. this information is encoded in the sequence of basic elements that make the genetic material.

- it must replicate with precision so that the same genetic information is present in the offspring cells along the successive generations.

- the information encoded in the genetic material must be able to be decoded in order to produce the molecules necessary to the structure and the cell functioning

- the genetic material must be able to make rare variations because mutations and recombinations are the source of the evolution process.

the DNA and the RNA fulfill those conditions."

chapter 21:

"mutation is the source of the variations in a population. its appearance breaks the genetical balance in the population. the appearance frequency of a spontaneaous mutation is 10 -6 or less but even at this weak rate the mutations are essentials for evolution (for exemple for adaptation to new environments). if a mutation gives birth to a new allele that's not favourable in the particular environment in which the subject lives, this allele will be counter-selected. in general, we observe a balance between mutation appearance frequency and its extinction rate by selection. a mutation can spread in a population by cross-breeding and recombination."


i don't know this man personnally, but it seems that he's hardly a charlatan trying to endoctrinate people for an "evolutionist propaganda". the title of this book mentions mister Mendel, who's refered to as the father of genetics, a person you mentioned often, and rightfully so. i know i may sound partisan when i defend the evolution theory here but i'm not. just reporting what i've found.

a little biography:


Peter J. Russell received his B.S. in Biology from University of Sussex in 1968 and his Ph.D. in Genetics from Cornell University in 1972. He then joined the Biology faculty of Reed College in 1972 where he is currently Professor of Biology. Russell teaches an upper-division genetics and molecular biology lecture/laboratory course, the genetics section of the introductory biology course, an advanced seminar course in yeast virology, and advises senior thesis research students. He is also the author of a number of successful genetics textbooks. He is currently studying the molecular genetics of the replication of double-stranded (ds) RNA viruses found in budding yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The research goals are to define in vivo the cis-acting sequences that are required for viral RNA packaging into capsids and for genome replication, and to identify and characterize any yeast gene products required for virus propagation. His earlier research involved Neurospora RNA synthesis and the organization of and regulation of the number of ribosomal RNA genes, and nitrogen metabolism in the pathogenic dimorphic yeast Candida albicans.

[Andrew Roussak]

Congrats to your great advances, Sunwaiter!!

Go on digging. Have already found out what does "allele" mean ( never mind, just kidding.. ?

To your post - he is by no means charlatan. Evolution is in this context - as almost always - a microevolution, not GENERAL evolution ( see example with the peppered moth ). As you did not have posted any other example, you may take this animal as a reference. The GRAY moth became BLACK one as the environment has changed - right. In your abstract from chapter 1 the mechanism of such change is being described. But it means the appropriate information ( black colour ) was already there in the moth's code. This colour change was of course BENEFICIARY for the animal in terms of the new environment - yes, but the mutation itself was NOT BENEFICIARY ( in the context Robert had meant ) because the information itself was not new. It's like using the same words for pretty different things. An example for such BENEFICIARY mutation could be a RED moth. Or a BLUE rose. Or a GREEN cat. The information code in DNA may seem pretty flexible, but this flexibility has its natural limits - like in this special case, the limits of colour variations. Ok?

You may find literally thousands of such examples in your library, or Internet - I can assure you, they would always mean microevolution as they say evolution, and not general evolution - which is the only issue of this thread. Microevolution is of course a proven thing, and the general evolution is a pure abstraction.

Cheers
Andrew

[sunwaiter]

here's a link i've already posted earlier on this thread. my attention has particularly been attracted by the 2.2 chapter. it's an experiment but i guess it doens't mean it can't happen in nature. we observe a "beneficial" mutation.
http://www.uwyo.edu/krist/misc/sse_poster_june06.pdf

the point when i posted this was to show Robert that mutations WERE indeed adaptation means; he told me there was a confusion between words. there is no confusion, it's just an explanation of adaptation. so i guess now we agree on this particular point.

if on a (long!) period of time mutations occur, an animal can "turn" dramatically , into another one, it seems.

it has been observed that the in-breeding between two kinds of sunflowers identified as distinct species produced a descendance that couldn't breed with ancestral sunflowers, thus making a new specie. this experience has even reproduced in a laboratory. i'll try to find some page about it. for now, as usual, i'm outta work! good night or day, take care.