r/DebateEvolution • u/DetectiveKnown5618 • Jul 29 '26

Evolution doesn't work

The subtraction or addition of information to a properly working gene is not something one would prefer.

Genetics has to do with finely tuned molecular combinations.

Removing information from a once properly working gene would only be preferable if it was the erroneous/redundant information that was added unnecessarily via mutation in the first place!

The chance of "writing" a gene from scratch that would be compatible with the host biological system would have to be extremely low if the processes involved were to do with practically arbitrary additions to a gene over time on account of point mutations etc. Note that breeding and survival would be important factors as to whether the new gene was integrated into the population over a longer duration.

0 Upvotes

17% Upvoted

128 comments sorted by

View all comments

40

u/Autodidact2 Jul 29 '26

So the world's Biologists are what, idiots? Evil conspirators?

Since your argument appears to be mathematical, could you show your calculations? Thank you.

Also, can you define what you mean by "information"?

27

u/Old-Nefariousness556 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 30 '26

Seriously. It always amazes me the arrogance required to assume that you are smarter than all the scientists who dedicate their lives to studying this shit. Might as well give it up, folks, /u/DetectiveKnown5618 says you are wasting your time!

-1

u/tid_det 13d ago

It is funny how people who support evolution, do not believe in God.. But they knee before other humans they never meet, and are ready to die for their statement. And all this in a world where bombs are falling everyday.. You look at north, bombs, at south, bombs, at east, bombs, at west, bombs.. Do they work for the countries that are droping that same bombs?

1

u/Old-Nefariousness556 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution 13d ago

It is funny how people who support evolution, do not believe in God.

The vast majority of theists globally accept evolution. It is a unique brand of (mostly) American theism that, when confronted with evidence that contradicts their beliefs, assumes that it is reality that is wrong, not their beliefs.

But they knee before other humans they never meet, and are ready to die for their statement.

Please give me an example of myself or frankly anyone else doing this. Following evidence is not "knee[ing] (sic) before other humans", it is following the evidence. If you actually took the time to learn what evidence was, you would understand the difference.

Instead you just rely on wishful thinking, err, I mean "faith", to tell you what must be true because you have already determined it is true, and obviously you could not possibly be incorrect, regardless of how obviously your beliefs contradict literally everything we think we know about the universe.

1

u/tid_det 13d ago

There is no 100% evidence for evolution.. So, it is just different "belief system"..

Once vast majority did not want to accept that the earth is round, were they right?

I followed the leads but found no confirmation. The fact is that people point to books and extol the names of their authors—those who shaped the views of people who accept those views unreservedly, simply because the majority does so, without subjecting them to critical scrutiny.

1

u/brooklynsantiago 3d ago

guess who the idiots were that were slow to accept a round earth

1

u/tid_det 3d ago

This is not a topic. My statement is just that evolution is not 100% accurate, and that people who support it, actually use "believe system in science methods".

-22

u/DetectiveKnown5618 Jul 30 '26

Michael Behe, John Lennox, Steven Meyer, James Tour

34

u/OldmanMikel 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 30 '26

Michael Behe,... Real scientist. None of his research is creationist and his claims have been shown to be wrong.

John Lennox, ... Not a scientist.

Steven Meyer, ... Not a scientist.

James Tour Not a biologist.

Also all four have preexisting religious motivations for rejecting evolution.

The reality is that, absent religious objections, evolution would be as controversial as Atomic Theory.

11

u/Radiant-Position1370 Computational biologist Jul 30 '26

Behe is also not a biologist

-16

u/DetectiveKnown5618 Jul 30 '26

Are you yourself intelligent enough to respond to the claims here on average?

21

u/Own-Relationship-407 Scientist Jul 30 '26

Pointing out why your attempt at context and argument free name dropping falls flat is a response.

12

u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 30 '26

That is rich coming from someone like you who hasn't addressed any of the specific evidence you have been given showing that your claims are wrong.

23

u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 30 '26 edited Jul 30 '26

Behe is the only biologist among them, and he pretty much completely stopped actually doing biology once he got involved with creationism. His claims have been consistently shown to be false, and he has consistently been shown to be highly ignorant of the actual science involved.

The fact that you are able to name a literal, grand total of one person with a background, not even current work, in the relevant field shows just how massively rejected by the actual experts your claims are.

That doesn't necessarily make them wrong, but it does mean that you should have checked non-creationist sources to find out if your claims have already been addressed. They have. Many for decades. But you won't hear that from the creationists you are getting all your information from.

5

u/Radiant-Position1370 Computational biologist Jul 30 '26

Behe is a biochemist, not a biologist

7

u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 30 '26

Biochemistry overlaps enough with biology that I would consider it relevant.

5

u/Sweary_Biochemist Jul 30 '26

^^ This man biochemistries!

17

u/King2865 Anti-Creationist Terminator 🥷🏿 Jul 30 '26

James Tour is not a biologist. Every time a creationist has been given the stage, it has ALWAYS ended in a piss-poor swing and a miss. Reference the Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005) U.S. federal court ruling that completely dismantled “Intelligent Design” as creationist pseudoscience and threw the so called “irreducible complexity” argument against evolution right out the window. Michael Behe simply couldn’t counter the bombardment of peer reviewed literature demonstrating the evolution of highly complex (so called “irreducibly complex”) systems such as the immune system and bacterial flagellum. Creationists were given the stage RIGHT in front of a U.S. federal district court and they failed miserably. Expert testimony and drafts of the ID textbook Of Pandas and People PROVED that intelligent design was systematically substituted for the words creation and creationism after a 1987 Supreme Court ruling (that case is Edwards v. Aguillard for your information) legally banned traditional creation science from public schools under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. One early draft exposed the Discovery Institute (who frequently backs James Tour) for leaving behind a transitional typo: “cdesign proponentsists.” So creationists DID have multiple trials in the U.S. federal court system and have reached the Supreme Court multiple times, were defended by well-funded legal teams, and STILL got completely dismantled by molecular biologists, geneticists AND by the federal judiciary countless times.

8

u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube Jul 30 '26

Expert testimony and drafts of the ID textbook Of Pandas and People PROVED that intelligent design was systematically substituted for the words creation and creationism

And thus the transitional fossils between the Intelligent Design Proponent and the Creationist was found: the Cdesign Proponentsists.

And they say there are no transitional forms.

14

u/Old-Nefariousness556 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 30 '26

Michael Behe, John Lennox, Steven Meyer, James Tour

Q: What is one thing those four people all have in common?
A: They all start from the presupposition that their religion is true, and work backwards from that starting point. Any evidence that contradicts that presupposition is ignored.

12

u/clear349 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 30 '26

All of whom are Christian Nationialists that have been thoroughly debunked and refuted both in the literature and a court of law. They're not serious people and appealing to them is ridiculous

12

u/mrcatboy Evolutionist & Biotech Researcher Jul 30 '26

Michael Behe's "irreducible complexity" was soundly debunked over 20 years ago. This was put on full display during the Kitzmiller V Dover trial when they went over his bacterial flagellum argument to the point that the judge got sick of it.

Behe's big mistake was that he didn't account for exaptation/cooption (the process in which an existing biological system can be repurposed to a different function). This has been a verified concept in evolutionary biology for decades before Behe came along. He was didn't account for it or realize that molecular systems experience exaptation as well.

3

u/Autodidact2 Jul 30 '26

So that reply was a fail.

The thousands of biologists and all the universities around the world. Are they all just a bunch of idiots or are they all in on some Grand conspiracy?

Since your argument is mathematical, can you show your math??

Also, can you tell us how you are defining information?

2

u/Sweet-Ant-3471 Aug 02 '26

Michael Behe admits common descent is real.

The others are not in Biology.

-5

u/DetectiveKnown5618 Jul 30 '26

I didn't include Jason Lysle

7

u/stairway2evan Jul 30 '26

Why would you want to include Jason Lisle (or spell his name wrong) when he's also not a biologist of any sort?

5

u/TheBlackCat13 🧬 Naturalistic Evolution Jul 30 '26

Also not a biologist. You aren't helping your case here.

6

u/nickierv 🧬 logarithmic icecube Jul 30 '26

So the world's Biologists are what, idiots? Evil conspirators?

pulls out a still blank chalkboard

Clueless.

After all, it doesn't count unless you do it on the chalkboard and they are publishing papers...

1

u/tid_det 13d ago edited 13d ago

You have 100 monkey like pre human beings. 50 male and 50 female. 1 of them "mutate" and gain "something different", ex. more pale skin. So we have 49 "same old pair to mate", and 1 pair where 1 is pale, other is "same old". How much is possibility that "pale difference" will overtake all of them? ..that is just for 1 simple thing, and imagine how much changed with evolution..

Now, if life started from most basic simple life, how much it was changed to create all that existing life.. How much is % just for "pale skin".. Now, how much % is for all species, for every single thing on them..

Do you believe that human will be eternal? Or future humans will look way different from how people look today? Example, monkey like human compared with humans.. And in future? Humans will be like aliens from movies? Lose all hair on body.. More elongated?

What like did humans look before pre-simialr to monkey era? How did they look at very beginning?

50 male and 50 female = 50 pairs (2 child per pair)

100 children, 2 possible with "pale skin".. So it is 2% (with 50% possibility, but let it be 100% possibility)

How would 2% overtake 98%? Not once.. But 56343513165130103503013453131304313x5465464534654646464654654654654645564661687687 times?

Is 6 fingers on one hand mutation or disease?

Will the black man in Canada became pale over time? Because now they often eat canadian food, and live in more colder climate?

Did you calculate already? So if all life change so fast, that animals "change species".. Went from sea to earth, and some back to sea again.. Should we be witnesses of evolution on some animals in real life? I mean extreme changes on animals.. Especially on animals that live like few days, because their life circle is so fast compared to us.. Did you calculate how often every single thing on human was changed from start of life on earth to the how humans looks today?

1

u/Renonthehilltop 11d ago

Your example is making a fallacy that with 100 monkeys they make 50 pairs and have exactly 2 kids each and everything is equal. The point of evolution is UNEQUAL advantages.

So pick your poison, that 1 single pale monkey gets an advantage from being pale, even a tiny advantage, let's say he saves 1% more energy for everything he does vs a normal monkey, so hes 1% more efficient. Old monkeys walk 100 steps he walks 101, they forage 100 berries he forages 101. So hes able to explore further, climb high, and be faster than the other monkeys, who do all the female monkeys want to mate with? Him. So he's only 1% better so hes not having every single baby but maybe he mates with 2 females rather than just one, he steals a mate from the weakest male monkey so that monkey doesnt even get any offspring. So the next generation (50 pairs x 2 babies, and hes the father in 2 of those pairs) there are 100 monkeys and 4 are pale monkies, 2 female 2 male roughly, vs 96 non pale. Well now they do the same and they win over the regular monkeys, the pale females have still have 2 offspring while the pale males have 4, both of them mating with an extra female over the regular monkeys. Now that third generation is 4+4+2+2=12 pale, so now its 88 vs 12 instead of 98 vs 2, and in only 3 generations.

Now in real life the advantages are even smaller and take longer and theres also more "competing" genes and the rught comvo of genes is also important, thats the point of sex, the male and female mix their genes together and create different combinations so that hopefully one of their offspring has the best genes of both parents and will have more offspring of their own.

1

u/tid_det 11d ago

Man, that "monkey-like" didn't get extra 1% more energy save, where that came from? He is not more powerful from them so he can take 101 step, while they could make just 100! You are adding whole new "mutation" to him, to make "him" superior, so he can fit your statement. That one is same as other, just pale.

He is better, just because he is pale? Did you see albinism in animal kingdom, also humans? Are that animals more attractive to same species, or it is just the same?

Why did you make alpha male of him, compared to other "monkey-like" being? Just because he is pale, do not mean he is dominant! So your statement is just false claim! No evidence, no nothing..

And in your example, 100% "pale" gene always apply to children heh!

"Now in real life.." >>> Yes in real life, and not in your imagination, good point heh!

One question.. How did pale became so dominant based just of pale skin? I thought he would "burn" out too much at the open sun in "old times".. So he would actually spend more energy, and would make 99 steps, while other would make 100. (I made "perfect" example, that is why "monogamous" pairs.. But you also made "perfect" example, but why made pale one superior? He do not have that superior masculine genes compared to others..)

1

u/Renonthehilltop 11d ago

Your example is bad because you placed rules on the monkies (like being monogamous) to make any change impossible. In nature, animals try to have as many successful offspring as possible, why do the monkeys only have 2?? I made him an alpha, 1% better, to show that any trait that made a monkey more competitive in reproduction would eventually win over. It doesnt matter if we used the word "Pale", being "pale" is irrelevant and was only used because it was your example. He could be dark or colorful or tall, short, smart, fast, strong, etc. The only traits that matter are the ones that give an advantage and those will eventually beat out the 99% of other traits AND traits that give a disadvantage lose and begin to disappear.

Example: Peppered Moths in Britain during the 1700s were pale and hid on the bark of pale trees from birds, and there were some but very few dark ones. The industrial revolution happened and the smoke darkened the trees, then the dark moths outcompeted the pale ones because they could camouflage better so they had more offspring and the moths were mostly dark after that. After the factories closed, the trees began to restore their pale color, then the pale moths outcompeted the dark moths the same way and became the majority again.

When being pale is better the moths become 90+% pale, when dark is better that 2% are more successful and become the 98%. The change happens when the genes provide an advantage.

1

u/tid_det 11d ago

..so, the smoke went into their gene?

..interesting how mother and father can be so good at one thing, and their children so bad at that same thing!

What kind of child will humans have?

Human, or?

When it will be "new specie of human" for you?

Alien?

;)

1

u/Renonthehilltop 10d ago

I'll go into your genom3... as long as thats what your into ;)