Continuing the rebuttal of the article, “9 Scientific Facts Prove that “The Theory of Evolution” is wrong.”
Believe it or not, the previous sentence of the last post had a rest-of-paragraph attached to it.
… Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables.
I’d love to know what this “DNA limit” is, or why the author thinks it exists.
New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science.
Is that why? Setting aside that science wouldn’t produce the species… I’m not seeing any other explanation to support the statement. We’ve never seen Pluto make a complete orbit, but we know it does. It is possible to accumulate sufficient non-direct-observation evidence to support a claim beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not only have I never heard an explanation as to why DNA has a limit, we do have observations in genetics of gene duplication, point insertions/deletions, and gaining/losing a chromosome. Our chromosome #2 is two previous separate chromosomes that fused together. There’s all kind of changes to the length/capacity occurring. Where’s the limit? This article covers the basics fairly well.
In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals.
I don’t understand how this sentence is related to the previous one. All of a sudden, out of the blue, we’re talking about an entirely different topic – abiogenesis. Typically left versus right handed amino acids/proteins is brought up because proteins need to be made completely out of either right or left-handed amino acids, and biology seems to prefer the left-handed ones… yet amino acid production that we know about tends to produce a mixture, which can break the chaining of those amino acids into proteins. So how, pray tell, could some of the first proteins have started?
I’m not well versed in the topic, but not only is science still very much at work investigating that question, but it has no relevancy at all to the diversification of species over generations (evolution). If we didn’t know where metal came from, does that mean that we don’t know how car engines work? That’d be a silly assertion.
Laboratories might not do it, but biology does it non-stop.
Evolutionist fail to admit that no species has ever been proven to have evolved in any way. Evolution is simply pie-in-the-sky conjecture without scientific proof.
Good gods, I’m going to get whiplash. We’ve jarringly snapped back to talking about evolution again, leaving abiogenesis in the dust.
It’s kind of funny, because the same system that would produce that “scientific proof” is currently telling him that we’ve observed it many times now. Here’s a list on TalkOrigins, complete with references. Typically when these examples are listed, the goalpost-shifting begins, and they retreat back to this undefined “kinds” thing.
Even if we had no examples, that’s not a disproof of evolution. At most, that means we haven’t met our burden of proof. Our list of observed speciation is brief, which makes sense given the short period of time we’ve been observing. It’d be like watching a sequoia tree for 30 minutes, and concluding that they don’t grow.
If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don’t. They are just as hairless as everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don’t. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict.
Here’s the key to understanding the issue here – the solutions that evolution comes up with aren’t intelligent ones. Evolution doesn’t say “Hmm! Cold environment… I guess let’s evolve fur. That makese sense.” Thus, the solutions that arise aren’t necesarily going to agree with our engineering ideas.
As with most things, body hair/fur is not universally beneficial. Has the author ever observed cats or dogs, who spend 36 million hours a day grooming themselves? It’s not that they’re obsessed with the taste of their own body hair. They’re undergoing maintenance, to reduce/eliminate the presence of parasites. If a lineage didn’t otherwise need fur for survival, it’s actually act as a detriment, decreasing the chances of survival to reproduction. Hairless bodies are much easier to remove parasites, increasing the health of the population.
I think this highlights yet another misconception the author has about natural selection. We can ask a basic question of this scenario. Do our Not-Eskimo generic people consistently die from the cold, due specifically to a lack of body hair? No – they have these magical things called “coats”, “socks”, and “hats”. If they’re too cold, they’ll throw on an extra pair of socks.
… and if a particular trait isn’t affecting their survival rate to reproduction, natural selection isn’t at play. There’s no contradiction or problem with evolutionary theory here. We actually wouldn’t expect natural selection to produce more body hair.
It’s interesting that the author should bring up black skin in the more sunny Jasper-uninhabitable regions of the planet.
This goes back to the previous misconception – again, evolution doesn’t produce the “best” solutions. Evolution is largely descent-with-modification. Silver reflective skin would need some sort of prerequisite trait to start from – to modify. Maybe if we retained fish scales, it could work with that, but those are long gone. Evolution doesn’t make brand new structures appear out of nothing (that’s why the entire branch of tetrapods are nearly identical in structure). With that in mind, evolution would most likely have selected for some other traits that improved survival to reproduction.
The author doesn’t state it explicitly, but I think he/she may have this misconception that we’re saying that evolution can do anything, or answers everything. Requiring humans to evolve mirror-reflective skin may be like requiring deer to evolve cloaking devices.
It’s ironic that the author should choose black skin (high in melanin), because that is a specifically sun-related adaption to the environment. The melanin effectively acts as sunblock, protecting DNA from the harmful effects of solar radiation, and helps against things like skin cancer.
The author has an erroneously, exceptionally narrow consideration of what’s “valid” within evolution. Dying from heat exhaustion, for instance, may already be handled by another evolutionary adaption, such as sweating. With this other adaption in place, survival rates may actually improve with the darker skin, than whatever benefits may arise from not having it. But because it doesn’t fit the author’s subjective mandate of what “counts”, we’ve entered bizarro world, where an example of evolutionary adaption that supports the theory is being cited as a refutation of that theory.
The author is playing this game, where he/she is doing the equivalent of trying to predict the weather by focusing on only one piece of data, while ignoring any other variables in the equation. That’s why the author just keeps getting it wrong. The total number of environmental factors and traits that modify the probability of the creature surviving to reproduction could be hundreds to thousands of variables.
The author’s inability of establish well-informed predictions about what traits might arise is not a refutation of evolutionary theory.
(The author attempts to rebut the above in the next paragraph, but I’m splitting it here)