Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travel Discussion
The Creation of Man
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dmitri" data-source="post: 15951" data-attributes="member: 397"><p><strong>Re: The Creation of Man</strong></p><p></p><p><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">Let?s get down to the root of the error. What the evolution theory proposes is natural selection on random variation resulting genetic change and thus new forms. The trivial simplicity of the following one gene model is the reason it penetrates minds starting from high school and does not go away easily. If ?A? gene variety has a higher survival probability than variety ?a? of the same gene, and no other variation exists, in a countable number of generations variety ?A? will replace variety ?a?. This is what most of population genetics is about. Where is the flaw? An organism does not have one gene only. And a gene is not just a few nucleotides long it is much longer. What if the individuals with the good gene ?A? carry a bad gene ?b? with the bad effect overweighing the good of ?A?? What about the natural situation that the number of bad mutations significantly exceeds the number of good ones? The species dies very soon, life is impossible, or the theory must die. One may argue: natural selection can eliminate all bad ones, even when they are many, and keep the few good ones. Well, it cannot. You can either check the behavior of the function, or you can intuitively conclude the following. Suppose the genome size is 3 billion base pairs (close to ours), the non-neutral mutation rate is one per a hundred million base pairs, resulting 30 mutations per individual per generation. Most mutations are naturally neutral and do not affect survival. However, for those that are not neutral, we can hardly suggest a rate of more than 1:100 of good ones to bad ones (how many times do we have to drop a Swiss watch on a concrete floor for the watch to go a bit more accurately? ? and a bacterium is far more complex than the whole watch factory). For the selection to work to the advantage of the species there should be some individuals with at least 16 good to 14 bad mutations. The selection will not find this or better one. Even if it did, it would have to wipe the rest of the population in every generation. But it will not find it in a billion years anyway. Some biologists would argue: the mutation rate is lower; it is like one per the whole genome per generation. Well, what genetic change would you get with such a low rate? A new gene in a hundred of billions of years? ? Not even that soon. And natural selection would still have to kill 99 out of 100. Darwin did not know about genes. Muller found the contradiction and termed it genetic load. Neo-Darwinians hid it, they do not want to talk about it, they get angry if you mention it, fun isn?t it? It is not just lack of evidence; it is a lot of evidence to the contrary. I can point a number of other insurmountable problems for the theory, but as Peter the First said to the firework attendant: -Why the cannons did not fire? ?Tsar, there were 7 reasons for that. ?What reasons? ?First, the gunpowder was wet. ?I do not want to here about the other 6. </span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dmitri, post: 15951, member: 397"] [b]Re: The Creation of Man[/b] [font=Verdana]Let?s get down to the root of the error. What the evolution theory proposes is natural selection on random variation resulting genetic change and thus new forms. The trivial simplicity of the following one gene model is the reason it penetrates minds starting from high school and does not go away easily. If ?A? gene variety has a higher survival probability than variety ?a? of the same gene, and no other variation exists, in a countable number of generations variety ?A? will replace variety ?a?. This is what most of population genetics is about. Where is the flaw? An organism does not have one gene only. And a gene is not just a few nucleotides long it is much longer. What if the individuals with the good gene ?A? carry a bad gene ?b? with the bad effect overweighing the good of ?A?? What about the natural situation that the number of bad mutations significantly exceeds the number of good ones? The species dies very soon, life is impossible, or the theory must die. One may argue: natural selection can eliminate all bad ones, even when they are many, and keep the few good ones. Well, it cannot. You can either check the behavior of the function, or you can intuitively conclude the following. Suppose the genome size is 3 billion base pairs (close to ours), the non-neutral mutation rate is one per a hundred million base pairs, resulting 30 mutations per individual per generation. Most mutations are naturally neutral and do not affect survival. However, for those that are not neutral, we can hardly suggest a rate of more than 1:100 of good ones to bad ones (how many times do we have to drop a Swiss watch on a concrete floor for the watch to go a bit more accurately? ? and a bacterium is far more complex than the whole watch factory). For the selection to work to the advantage of the species there should be some individuals with at least 16 good to 14 bad mutations. The selection will not find this or better one. Even if it did, it would have to wipe the rest of the population in every generation. But it will not find it in a billion years anyway. Some biologists would argue: the mutation rate is lower; it is like one per the whole genome per generation. Well, what genetic change would you get with such a low rate? A new gene in a hundred of billions of years? ? Not even that soon. And natural selection would still have to kill 99 out of 100. Darwin did not know about genes. Muller found the contradiction and termed it genetic load. Neo-Darwinians hid it, they do not want to talk about it, they get angry if you mention it, fun isn?t it? It is not just lack of evidence; it is a lot of evidence to the contrary. I can point a number of other insurmountable problems for the theory, but as Peter the First said to the firework attendant: -Why the cannons did not fire? ?Tsar, there were 7 reasons for that. ?What reasons? ?First, the gunpowder was wet. ?I do not want to here about the other 6. [/font] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Time Travel Discussion
The Creation of Man
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top