disproving evolution in 5 minutes or less

[one.opinion]

4 hours ago, nobleseed said:

if evolution exists it is only because God created it

I completely agree, and accept the evidence that this is exactly what has happened.

[ARGOSY]

On 10/9/2019 at 4:01 AM, The Barbarian said:

There is no "devolution."    That was a one-time joke by an 80s pop group.    The key here is that a genome's fitness only counts in terms of the environment.   So we see that organisms are more fit now than then were in the past.    This is directly observed; as Darwin predicted, fitness tends to increase in a population.    Would you like some examples?

And some rather simple organisms have far more genes than we do.   The number of genes has very little, if anything to do with complexity.    Do you see why?

 

 

There are many extinctions occurring, thus the observed trend among earth's species since the Cambrian explosion is a reduction in fitness leading to more extinctions occurring via reduced fitness, than new species being created via improved fitness. 

Now DNA analysis shows that most species have more active genes than prokaryotes, yet this process is natural and evolutionary  according to  the theory of evolution. If so then most extant species have evolved fitness through a nett gain of active genes since prokaryotes. 

Yet observed diversification of species within known clades from known common ancestors (eg Australian marsupials) shows only reduction in active genes during speciation, with not even one nett gain of a novel gene adding to fitness. 

The evidence is showing millions of species existing in early layers, then devolving and becoming extinct, and the number of species continuously dropping. This is nothing like would be expected under the theory of evolution. 

Edited October 10, 2019 by ARGOSY

[The Barbarian]

8 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

There are many extinctions occurring, thus the observed trend among earth's species since the Cambrian explosion is a reduction in fitness leading to more extinctions occurring via reduced fitness, than new species being created via improved fitness. 

That would mean increased fitness, not lowered fitness.   Removing the less fit is as important as favoring the more fit. 

8 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Now DNA analysis shows that most species have more active genes than prokaryotes, yet this process is natural and evolutionary  according to  the theory of evolution. If so then most extant species have evolved fitness through a nett gain of active genes since prokaryotes. 

How do you think "more active genes" are a sign of fitness?   I would think that the opposite would be true.    Higher metabolic costs don't equate to a fit organism.

8 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Yet observed diversification of species within known clades from known common ancestors (eg Australian marsupials) shows only reduction in active genes during speciation, with not even one nett gain of a novel gene adding to fitness. 

And why do you suppose a more complex genome is more fit?   Many organisms have much more complexity than we do.   Yet we seem to have been very fit, expanding into more and more environments.

 

8 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

The evidence is showing millions of species existing in early layers, then devolving and becoming extinct, and the number of species continuously dropping. This is nothing like would be expected under the theory of evolution. 

There is no "devolving."   It's just a joke.   And while we're going through a great extinction now, (mostly from humans reducing habitats) that's not a sign of lowered fitness, either.   Evolutionary theory predicts many extinctions when conditions change.  
 

Which is what we are observing.

 

 

[Alive]

Entropy is not your friend. I believe it entered the Creation's dynamic at the fall.

Fellas--do some research on how the "increase in the rate" of mutation in the human genome is increasing in each generation.

We are not what we once were. Note that bit--increase in the rate. Most all mutations are deleterious.

Entropy is the key to all of this.

First life is another very interesting study!

[ARGOSY]

17 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

That would mean increased fitness, not lowered fitness.   Removing the less fit is as important as favoring the more fit. 

How do you think "more active genes" are a sign of fitness?   I would think that the opposite would be true.    Higher metabolic costs don't equate to a fit organism.

And why do you suppose a more complex genome is more fit?   Many organisms have much more complexity than we do.   Yet we seem to have been very fit, expanding into more and more environments.

 

There is no "devolving."   It's just a joke.   And while we're going through a great extinction now, (mostly from humans reducing habitats) that's not a sign of lowered fitness, either.   Evolutionary theory predicts many extinctions when conditions change.  
 

Which is what we are observing.

If the prokaryote is the first known organism, then except for them and some similar organisms of low gene count, every other organism has shown an increasing number of novel coding genes. I have spoken to many evolutionists and every single one has battled to acknowledge that fact. 

 

Without acknowledging that process is a significant part of evolutionary theory, I can only conclude that you don't understand your own theory. 

 

Why do you guys avoid acknowledging that?? It's pretty weird really. 

[ARGOSY]

6 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

If the prokaryote is the first known organism, then except for them and some similar organisms of low gene count, every other organism has shown an increasing number of novel coding genes. I have spoken to many evolutionists and every single one has battled to acknowledge that fact. 

 

Without acknowledging that process is a significant part of evolutionary theory, I can only conclude that you don't understand your own theory. 

 

Why do you guys avoid acknowledging that?? It's pretty weird really. 

Maybe if you evolutionists acknowledge that most extant species have more novel genes  since the prokaryote, you would care to try and prove the process that creates these. 

Yet observed processes only show entropy, for example when Australian marsupials diversified from the South American possum no new novel genes were found in the diversification within that clade. The DNA diversity between species within a clade is via changed allele frequencies and entropy. 

So evolution is not an evidence based explanation for the existence of most extant species.

(credit to Alive for showing me a better word than devolution, entropy) 

Edited October 10, 2019 by ARGOSY

[The Barbarian]

8 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

If the prokaryote is the first known organism, then except for them and some similar organisms of low gene count, every other organism has shown an increasing number of novel coding genes. I have spoken to many evolutionists and every single one has battled to acknowledge that fact. 

You're wrong.    Water fleas, for example, have about 30,000 genes, far more than humans.   

2 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Without acknowledging that process is a significant part of evolutionary theory, I can only conclude that you don't understand your own theory. 

You've simply assumed something completely at odds with biology and evolutionary theory.    Or possibly someone who knew no better that you, told you the story.  It's just wrong.

8 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Why do you guys avoid acknowledging that?? It's pretty weird really. 

It's a common misconception among creationists.   I have no idea why.

2 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Maybe if you evolutionists acknowledge that most extant species have more novel genes  since the prokaryote, you would care to try and prove the process that creates these. 

First, you have to realize that we share many, many genes with prokaryotes.   But it's easy to show how new genes develop.   In most cases, it's gene duplication, followed by mutation of one copy.  Would you like to learn more about that?

2 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Yet observed processes only show entropy, for example when Australian marsupials diversified from the South American possum no new novel genes were found in the diversification within that clade. The DNA diversity between species within a clade is via changed allele frequencies and entropy. 

Perhaps you don't know what "entropy" means.   In genes, it refers to the amount of information that is uncertain until the gene is read.   So the total information of a specific gene is:

-1 times the sum of the products of the frequency of each allele times the log of the frequency of each allele

If you do the math, you'll find that every new mutation adds information to a population.    How can entropy in a system possibly decrease, when the 2nd Law says it must increase?

Well, that's not what the 2nd Law says.   It says that in a closed system, entropy will increase.  Which means that without energy inputs from outside the population, entropy would increase.   So the Sun (for example) continues to supply energy to the biosphere, which therefor shows a decrease in entropy.

2 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

So evolution is not an evidence based explanation for the existence of most extant species.

Even groups like "Answers in Genesis" and the Institute for Creation Research admit the fact of speciation.   They could hardly do otherwise, since that is also directly observed to happen.

 

2 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

(credit to Alive for showing me a better word than devolution, entropy) 

But you still have to know what it is.  I've only given you an outline of what it means; you've got a lot of reading to do.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

9 hours ago, Alive said:

Entropy is not your friend. I believe it entered the Creation's dynamic at the fall.

Fellas--do some research on how the "increase in the rate" of mutation in the human genome is increasing in each generation.

We are not what we once were. Note that bit--increase in the rate. Most all mutations are deleterious.

Entropy is the key to all of this.

First life is another very interesting study!

Actually, entropy was working fine in the Garden of Eden.    That's why Adam and Eve had to eat, and why God supplied them with food.

It turns out that most mutations don't do very much of anything.   A few are harmful, and a very few are useful.    If it weren't for natural selection, all life on Earth would have ceased long ago.

Perhaps you don't know what "entropy" means.     What do you think it means?

 

 

 

[Alive]

Haha....I am quite sure I know what entropy is.

Your assumption regarding sustenance in the garden doesn’t hold water.

Sorry.

Everything goes from organization to disorganization to simplify.

The Lord holds all things together in the current corrupt universe, but he has another fresh new one ready to go, where that corruption will be replaced by an ever sustaining perfectly balanced Life infused construct.

Where He is all in All...a perfect unadulterated reality of Himself.

 

[ARGOSY]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

You're wrong.    Water fleas, for example, have about 30,000 genes, far more than humans.   

You've simply assumed something completely at odds with biology and evolutionary theory.    Or possibly someone who knew no better that you, told you the story.  It's just wrong.

It's a common misconception among creationists.   I have no idea why.

First, you have to realize that we share many, many genes with prokaryotes.   But it's easy to show how new genes develop.   In most cases, it's gene duplication, followed by mutation of one copy.  Would you like to learn more about that?

Perhaps you don't know what "entropy" means.   In genes, it refers to the amount of information that is uncertain until the gene is read.   So the total information of a specific gene is:

-1 times the sum of the products of the frequency of each allele times the log of the frequency of each allele

If you do the math, you'll find that every new mutation adds information to a population.    How can entropy in a system possibly decrease, when the 2nd Law says it must increase?

Well, that's not what the 2nd Law says.   It says that in a closed system, entropy will increase.  Which means that without energy inputs from outside the population, entropy would increase.   So the Sun (for example) continues to supply energy to the biosphere, which therefor shows a decrease in entropy.

Even groups like "Answers in Genesis" and the Institute for Creation Research admit the fact of speciation.   They could hardly do otherwise, since that is also directly observed to happen.

 

But you still have to know what it is.  I've only given you an outline of what it means; you've got a lot of reading to do.

 

It seems you didn't understand my post, yet I put forward a simple concept. The earliest known fossils are of prokaryotes, known to haveo 1500 to 3000 genes. Yet most other organisms have more genes than that. You proudly mention water fleas having 30000 genes as if this disproves my case, well it supports my simple assertion that most extant species have more genes than the original prokaryote. If evolution caused this, we should be able to observe this increase in de novo novel genes when we observe the diversification of species within a clade. We do not observe that aspect of evolution. 

 

We observe entropy, predictable under both creationism and evolution. Yet the TOE  does nothing to provide evidence that it is in any manner involved in a process that adds novel de novo genes over time. How then did most extant species get here? Creationism followed by entropy is the answer, we observe the predictable entropy aspect of adaptation, yet we do not observe the surmised gene adding process necessary to the TOE.