The truth about evolution.


Thread starter #1

Harte

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
2,887
Likes
1,632
From your source:
ViXra is an open repository for new scientific articles. It does not endorse e-prints accepted on its website, neither does it review them against criteria such as correctness or author's credentials.
Meaning anyone at all can post anything they want there. This dismisses the paper as nonscientific in nature. Besides, it attempts to debunk evolution by mutation rates, which has not for a long time been how evolution has been explained - genetic drift is a large part of it.
Note:
Main Points: 1) total variation does not change; variation goes from within populations (no variation between populations) to between populations (no variation within populations). 2) genetic divergence of populations entirely by chance! (no selection). This is why genetic drift can be an important force in evolution.
The above modeling was based on ONLY genetic drift, with no mutation occurring. Source

When Darwin said "fittest," he didn't mean in the best physical shape. He meant fittest to survive (and, mainly, to reproduce.) Adaptability is a large part of that survival, although there are other aspects, all of them (including "fittest") mostly random.

Harte
 

Harte

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
2,887
Likes
1,632
Harte, you are making a mistake coming at me with this stupid shit
Am I? Please point out my mistake.
The paper itself states "The purpose of this report is to debunk Darwin's theory of evolution and any variant theory that relies on the natural rate of mutation to explain the origin of new genes."
My link clearly shows that evolution occurs with or without relying on the natural rate of mutation to explain the origin of new genes.
I pointed out that the natural rate of mutation is not how evolution is currently explained.
In the opening, the paper concerns itself with "junk DNA," a term from journalism - not science. Science does not consider any DNA to be "junk," and has discovered that what journalism calls "junk DNA" is actually not "junk" at all.

Therefore the paper is utterly outdated even though it was recently written (2011.)
That should tell you a few things about the author.

Harte