Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / Re: Is evolution even science, or just gross intellectual dishonesty?« on: 12/12/2016 17:50:19 »
Random acts, even if they might result in any benefits, will always result in far more chaos. For example, even if you believed that if you threw a pile of bricks off a roof billions of times they would eventually fall into a perfectly constructed house with walls, closets and an attached garage, a vast majority of the time, though, they would unquestionably fall into meaningless configurations.Genes, chromosomes etc. are not bricks. They don't just take on any random configuration and can only combine in certain ways. They also are more analogous to the blueprints of the house rather than the building materials. Mutations are small alterations to those blueprints. Of course, you might instead be referring instead to the original formation of life, abiogenesis instead here. But even abiogenesis is not just a random throwing together of chemicals, as those chemical themselves have rules that govern how they can join up. Besides, abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things and are not related to each other, even though some people try to lump them together into a single argument. (now that's intellectual dishonesty)
Mutations are not the random remixing of genetic material. they are small changes to one part of the blueprint. Some mutations are benign (the Siamese breed of cat is a result of a mutation that altered its pigmentation.), Some will be harmful, and some will turn out to be beneficial. (if not immediately then at some later point. If the mutation is harmful or produces a malformed individual, that individual will either not survive or won't reproduce, and the mutation never gets into the gene pool. (If it hadn't been for the fact that people found the unique pigmentation of the Siamese cat desirable, they would have bred it out instead of for it and you wouldn't see that breed of cat today) Mutations effect individuals, while evolution effects populations. Only those mutations that do not hinder the individuals reproduction will be passed on to later generations and spread out into the population as a whole.
The same is true with genetics. Randomly rearranging genetic material generally result in grossly deformed and diseased organisms. For every fossil of a viable-looking organisms we should have found billions of fossils of diseased and deformed organisms. They're not there. The vast majority of fossils show well-formed, functional-looking creatures. The fossil record proves beyond any question that evolution never happened.
The mutation rate also is fairly low in any given population. (if it goes too high, you risk not producing enough viable offspring to maintain the population.) As a result, the number of undesirable mutations resulting is malformed individuals is going to be vert low compared to the population at large (And the majority of these won't survive infancy). The fossil record is sparse when compared to the number of creatures that have lived in the past. The conditions which produces a fossil happens rarely and the vat majority of the time a deceased animal leaves no lasting record. Pure common sense tells us that if if the fossil record is only represents a tiny fraction of past animal life and that malformed individuals would only be expected to be a small fraction of that, that you would not expect to find "billions" of fossils of malformed individuals. To suggest otherwise is again to be intellectually dishonest.
Evolution is the combination of small random mutations to the individual coupled with natural selection on the population level. Those mutations that do not hinder the individual's reproduction, are passed on, those that do, are not. That's evolution; the slow alteration of a population over many generations.
Then, to say that evolution was not random, as some have suggested, yet still call it evolution, is as ludicrous as calling a bird a giraffe -- if it flies it's not a giraffe.
"Unfit" is a relative term. A creature that is unfit under one circumstance, is the fittest under another. Let's take the giraffe for example. You start with an animal that grazes on low shrubs. In a population you are going to have a certain genetic variation in terms of neck length. This will vary over a certain range, with necks too long or too short selected against. But now the climate begins to slowly change and the low shrubbery is going away in favor of trees. Those animals with longer necks find themselves having a slight advantage over those with shorter necks. The shorter necked individuals can't compete as well, produce fewer and fewer offspring and this trait is selected against. A new "norm" has been established for neck length. This also means that mutations that produce even a longer neck will be selected for, when earlier, it would have been selected against (the too long neck being more of a hindrance for a low level browser.) So a really long neck is "unfit" under certain conditions, but more fit under others. "unfit" doesn't equate to non-viable, but just not a good fit for the circumstances. "Survival of the fittest", just means that those individuals that have a genetic trait that gives them a competitive edge, is going to be more successful, and be more likely to produce offspring and pass that trait onto later generations.
The bottom line is the fossil records shows that new species make their first appearance as functional creatures, not as a result of survival of the fittest. Where are the myriads of "unfit" that should have existed? Such a sudden appearance of new, viable life forms, which is confirmed over and over by the fossil record, rather than support evolution, thoroughly disprove it.
All your arguments themselves have been a type of intellectual dishonesty known as the "strawman fallacy". You have erected a "strawman" version of evolution and knocked it down rather than actually arguing against the theory itself. This is why people keep telling you that you need to learn about evolution and what it actually says. Otherwise you are arguing against some imaginary version of it that is of your own making. (And ending up looking foolish in the process.)
The following users thanked this post: atrox