Sponge Bob vs Darwin

[Hunor999]

Hi there,

I've already posted about this, but I think I made it in the wrong section so if any moderator sees this, feel free to delete my previous post

m a programmer and I'm convinced that Sponge Bob disproves Darwin! and yes, I'm serious.

I think biologists are too busy focusing on bacteria and viruses in their small petri dishes and they just can't see the big picture as a whole.

If you open your eyes you have to notice, that there are three levels of organization and complexity in biology:

“- The first level is molecular organization. In every living cell there is a highly sophisticated and complex system in operation, which controls the secretion and organization of different molecules like proteins and enzymes.
- The second level is the multicellular organization. In most multicellular organisms there are different types of cells that must be differentiated and organized in order to assemble and maintain the existence of a multicellular life form.
- The third level is the ecological organization. This level refers to the differentiation and selection of different species. This process is just as complex and vital as the previous levels. We are dependant on plants and insects just as much as we are on blood cells and neurons. Our existence relies on the current specific equilibrium. All kinds of biological equilibrium is possible, and the support of intelligence is not a necessity.
I have to point out, that our equilibrium is not a product of a long-term balancing and tuning process, but during a geologically rapid event - Cambrian explosion - just the right types of organisms happened to evolve and the right kind of differentiations occurred .


It is a fact that the first level of organization is controlled by encoded gene expressions. It is also a fact that the second level is controlled by gene expressions and gene regulations. I think it is reasonable to think, that the third level is also controlled by pretty much the same way. “


The similarity between ontogeny and evolution can't be denied, even Darwin saw an evidence for evolution in embryology. We have to see though, that ontogeny is not driven by mutations, but by precoded instructions.


Isn't it possible then, that the first cell was not a simple bacteria, but a primordial stem cell, that already carried the instructions for an entire evolution as a fertilized ovum carries the genetic information for an ontogeny?


Actually there are solid proofs that this is exactly what actually happened! This is where Sponge Bob comes into the picture. Sponges are the most primitive multicellular animals on the planet, and yet they posses astonishingly rich genetic resources and we share 70% of our genes with them.
The incremental, gradual accumulation of genes is a myth. We can see that a creature that is so primitive as the sea-sponge can have just as complex genome as any other animal. If we compare genome sizes and the number of genes between different species we can't say that birds have more complex DNA than fish or that fish have more complex DNA than sponges. The evolutionary progression is apparent only on the surface, only in physical structures and it's not clearly evincible in genetic information. Genetic complexity is not related to structural complexity.


The most interesting part about sponges is that amongst their thousands of genes, there are many that they should not have: "Curiously, the cells of a sponge bear little resemblance to cells found in the rest of the animal kingdom. For example, sponges lack neurons; however, the sponge genome reveals the presence of many genes found in neurons."
“What are the genes even doing there if they don't have neurons or synapses? We still don't know the answer to that question." said researcher Kenneth S. Kosik. (University of California-Santa Barbara)
Answering Kenneth S. Kosik's question is very easy. These genes are there, because the sponge genome isn't evolved from simple bacterial DNA, but it is degenerated from a genome of a primordial stem cell. They don't have neurons but later, more advanced creatures do, so those genes had to be there.


This is the theory of Pre-Coded Equilibrium


There are huge amounts of additional proofs, if you are interested in them check this blog:
pceq.weebly.com


it is absolutely add-free, you can ban me if you find anything harmful on that site


God bless you!

 

[Tiberius]

DNA doesn't contain instructions for evolution. It contains a instructions (not really the right word, but oh well) for developing an organism.

And as for why sponges have those genes, isn't it possible that the genes came first and were used for one thing, but when organisms evolved neurons etc they found those same genes were useful for those as well?

Kinda like how when the zippers on my backpack broke I replaced them with those small padlocks you get in travel goods stores. And I then realised that it was also a good thing to have in order to lock my bag to prevent theft. I add something for one thing, and then find it has another use.

 

[Hunor999]

DNA doesn't contain instructions for evolution. It contains a instructions (not really the right word, but oh well) for developing an organism.

Instruction is just the right word. I know exactly what I'm talking about. Though, you can't know for sure if DNA contains information about evolution or not. Most of the DNA, the non protein coding regions are still poorly understood, nobody can make such claims responsibly that you just did, since nobody fully understands what lies within the DNA. As to your speculation about zippers and genes: yes, you can make up stories like that, but there is not a shred of evidence that those genes have any function whatsoever in a sponge. There are also many other evidences for the presence of other genes that are older than the structures they control. The PAX6 that is responsible ofr the development of eyes is a good example for a start, it is admitted even on the biased wikipedia page about the development of eyes:
"These high-level genes are, by implication, much older than many of the structures that they are today seen to control"


Nicola J. Nadeau and Chris D Jiggins wrote in their article, A golden age for evolutionary genetics: "convergent evolution commonly involves the same genes. This implies a surprising predictability underlying the genetic basis of evolutionary changes. Nonetheless, most studies of recent evolution involve the loss of traits, and we still understand little of the genetic changes needed in the origin of novel traits."

This quotation contains two important admission. What they say basically is this: In the case of convergent evolution, the same sequences of mutations and duplications happen on genes independently by random mutations and selections. Isn't it possible that those genes are actually existed before the divergence of the later converging species? Isn't it mathematically much more probable that these genes are also older than the structures they control?

The other admission is that in most observable cases natural selection and mutation leads to degeneration, to losing traits. If losing traits and genes is more common than gaining them, then how could have evolution accumulated so many genes and traits? The whole concept and the underlying mechanism is flawed. They try to explain the existence of a complex, sophisticated and innovative language, that is DNA, with an extremely primitive algorithm. Darwin's model is nothing else than a mount-climbing heuristic mixed with random mutation. But such algorithms always stuck in local maximum, we know this from computer science. darwinists try to explain that local maximum doesn't exist in nature but wherever you look, you see fully optimized creatures that are in a state of local maximum.

sorry for my bad english, I hope you get my point though.

 

[Tiberius]

Instruction is just the right word. I know exactly what I'm talking about

Actually, it was "blueprint" that I was thinking about that wasn't the right word. A better word would be recipe.

Though, you can't know for sure if DNA contains information about evolution or not.

In what way? Evolution about the past, yes it does provide us with a wealth of information.

Evolution in the future? It can't provide any information about that. evolution doesn't predict what it will need to evolve in the future.

Most of the DNA, the non protein coding regions are still poorly understood, nobody can make such claims responsibly that you just did, since nobody fully understands what lies within the DNA.

But we can see that, in bacteria for example, we can remove sections of the code and no change occurs in the organism. Thus, "junk" or non-coding DNA.

As to your speculation about zippers and genes: yes, you can make up stories like that, but there is not a shred of evidence that those genes have any function whatsoever in a sponge.

It isn't a made up story. It is an observed fact that sometimes what we see is a modification of something developed for an entirely different purpose.

There are also many other evidences for the presence of other genes that are older than the structures they control. The PAX6 that is responsible ofr the development of eyes is a good example for a start, it is admitted even on the biased wikipedia page about the development of eyes:
"These high-level genes are, by implication, much older than many of the structures that they are today seen to control"

Again, this is assuming that the genes' only purpose is to do what they are doing today.

Nicola J. Nadeau and Chris D Jiggins wrote in their article, A golden age for evolutionary genetics: "convergent evolution commonly involves the same genes. This implies a surprising predictability underlying the genetic basis of evolutionary changes. Nonetheless, most studies of recent evolution involve the loss of traits, and we still understand little of the genetic changes needed in the origin of novel traits."

This quotation contains two important admission. What they say basically is this: In the case of convergent evolution, the same sequences of mutations and duplications happen on genes independently by random mutations and selections. Isn't it possible that those genes are actually existed before the divergence of the later converging species? Isn't it mathematically much more probable that these genes are also older than the structures they control?

I think it would be much better to learn what they have to say from their paper, and not from a single quote. Quote mining is never good.

The other admission is that in most observable cases natural selection and mutation leads to degeneration, to losing traits. If losing traits and genes is more common than gaining them, then how could have evolution accumulated so many genes and traits?

Don't confuse losing traits with losing information.

The whole concept and the underlying mechanism is flawed. They try to explain the existence of a complex, sophisticated and innovative language, that is DNA, with an extremely primitive algorithm. Darwin's model is nothing else than a mount-climbing heuristic mixed with random mutation. But such algorithms always stuck in local maximum, we know this from computer science. darwinists try to explain that local maximum doesn't exist in nature but wherever you look, you see fully optimized creatures that are in a state of local maximum.

Excuse me? Darwin's model of DNA?

I suspect you have a very flawed view of both biology and evolution.

sorry for my bad english, I hope you get my point though.

No worries. Have you ever studied biology at all?

 

[Hunor999]

In what way? Evolution about the past, yes it does provide us with a wealth of information.

Evolution in the future? It can't provide any information about that. evolution doesn't predict what it will need to evolve in the future.

You think in the box of Darwinian preconceptions, I'm not surprised that you don't understand and misrepresent my points. The point is that it is possible that evolution is not a blind process after all, the changes some call "punctuated equilibrium" and the cambrian explosion can be caused by pre-coded gene regulations.

But we can see that, in bacteria for example, we can remove sections of the code and no change occurs in the organism. Thus, "junk" or non-coding DNA.

Again, "Junk" dna is an outdated concept that was a result of darwinian preconceptions, no serious biochemist say "junk dna" these days. Every day more and more function of those regions are revealed, furthermore as you say you can remove some non coding regions without affecting the development of an organism and thit is exactly what we would observe if those sections carries information about evolution and not ontogenesis. I'm not saying though, that this is a proof but definitely it fits in the picture of PCE.

It isn't a made up story. It is an observed fact that sometimes what we see is a modification of something developed for an entirely different purpose.

It is fact the engineering doesn't work that way, every part of a computer is designed for a particular purpose and not modified versions of let say parts of a pocket calculator. To think engineering can be done in the way you described is purely speculation, engineers dont work that way because that is not effective. They design completely new devices for particular tasks and this is exactly what we see in the case of molecular machines in cells. The process of protein synthesis and the DNA replication is vital for life, it is a requirement for evolution to begin, yet these processes are immensely complex. A whole evolution is needed to get to the simplest bacteria and scientists have no valid model how it could have happened. Watch this video on youtube about molecular machines: /watch?v=yqw-CScNnGc, a 2:00 you see a "factory" that replicates DNA, this factory couldn't have been evolved because it is necessary for evolution.
So I ask you: How does such a complex factory come into existence?

Again, this is assuming that the genes' only purpose is to do what they are doing today.

Yes, but assuming they had other purposes is also an assumption and this one could be easily proved if this would be the case. The burden of proof is on you. If you say there is a planet between earth and mars it is you who has to proof there is, and not others task to show that there isn't.

I think it would be much better to learn what they have to say from their paper, and not from a single quote. Quote mining is never good.

What they have to say is always darwinian misinterpretation of the facts. I always try to sort out the facts from these papers.

Don't confuse losing traits with losing information.

Every trait is bound to specific information in the DNA, I don't see the point in this comment at all.

Excuse me? Darwin's model of DNA?

I suspect you have a very flawed view of both biology and evolution.

Again, it is obviously you who don't understand the issue. Who said Darwin's model of DNA? Darwin's model is referred to the algorythm which is natural selection which is equal to mount-climbing heuristic. Ok, maybe I could have been more specific, but when I wrote: "a mount-climbing heuristic mixed with random mutation." you could have figured out that is not a model of DNA, but the process how it came into existence.

No worries. Have you ever studied biology at all?

I have studied these things for many years, and I'm convinced that I know way more about evolution than you, but no offense intended

 

[Tiberius]

You think in the box of Darwinian preconceptions, I'm not surprised that you don't understand and misrepresent my points. The point is that it is possible that evolution is not a blind process after all, the changes some call "punctuated equilibrium" and the cambrian explosion can be caused by pre-coded gene regulations.

Show me evidence for this then.

Again, "Junk" dna is an outdated concept that was a result of darwinian preconceptions, no serious biochemist say "junk dna" these days. Every day more and more function of those regions are revealed, furthermore as you say you can remove some non coding regions without affecting the development of an organism and thit is exactly what we would observe if those sections carries information about evolution and not ontogenesis. I'm not saying though, that this is a proof but definitely it fits in the picture of PCE.

So since you say that we can remove some of these non-coding portions without affecting the development of an organism, and that this is exactly what we see, are you agreeing with me or what?

It is fact the engineering doesn't work that way, every part of a computer is designed for a particular purpose and not modified versions of let say parts of a pocket calculator. To think engineering can be done in the way you described is purely speculation, engineers dont work that way because that is not effective. They design completely new devices for particular tasks and this is exactly what we see in the case of molecular machines in cells. The process of protein synthesis and the DNA replication is vital for life, it is a requirement for evolution to begin, yet these processes are immensely complex. A whole evolution is needed to get to the simplest bacteria and scientists have no valid model how it could have happened. Watch this video on youtube about molecular machines: /watch?v=yqw-CScNnGc, a 2:00 you see a "factory" that replicates DNA, this factory couldn't have been evolved because it is necessary for evolution.
So I ask you: How does such a complex factory come into existence?

We're not talking about mechanical factories that went through the design process of intelligent minds before they even existed.

We're talking about biological cells.

Way to make a strawman.

Yes, but assuming they had other purposes is also an assumption and this one could be easily proved if this would be the case. The burden of proof is on you. If you say there is a planet between earth and mars it is you who has to proof there is, and not others task to show that there isn't.

Here is the bacterial Flagellum. It is a spinning whiplike tail that is often cited as an example of irreducible complexity. Creationists said that if you remove a single part then it ceases to function, and thus could not have evolved.

THIS website makes such a claim, and as we shall see, that claim is wrong.

THIS page discusses the flagellum in a fair bit of detail, and shows how it is likely that it evolved from a secretory system. THIS page also discusses how the flagellum evolved.

So you can see, it is not an assumption in this case (and I deliberately chose the case where evolution had the toughest job of explaining it). It is not an assumption when a scientist says that some body part or some gene once had a different function and was co-opted to take on a different role.

What they have to say is always darwinian misinterpretation of the facts. I always try to sort out the facts from these papers.

By quote mining. That's not very honest, is it?

Every trait is bound to specific information in the DNA, I don't see the point in this comment at all.

Or it can be the result of different phenotypes interacting in a way that cannot be predicted simply by looking at the DNA code.

Again, it is obviously you who don't understand the issue. Who said Darwin's model of DNA? Darwin's model is referred to the algorythm which is natural selection which is equal to mount-climbing heuristic. Ok, maybe I could have been more specific, but when I wrote: "a mount-climbing heuristic mixed with random mutation." you could have figured out that is not a model of DNA, but the process how it came into existence.

Well, yes, you should have been more specific. Darwin's model - aka Natural Selection - is well documented and has a wealth of supporting information.

I have studied these things for many years, and I'm convinced that I know way more about evolution than you, but no offense intended

You don't act like you know much about it. You act like you years of study was looking at creationist propaganda.

 

[Loudmouth]

Isn't it possible then, that the first cell was not a simple bacteria, but a primordial stem cell, that already carried the instructions for an entire evolution as a fertilized ovum carries the genetic information for an ontogeny?

No, it isn't. You can't produce the biodiversity we see today from a single genome. You have to change that genome through mutation in order to get different species.

Sponges are the most primitive multicellular animals on the planet, and yet they posses astonishingly rich genetic resources and we share 70% of our genes with them.

Since we share a common ancestor with sponges, why shouldn't this be the case?

The incremental, gradual accumulation of genes is a myth. We can see that a creature that is so primitive as the sea-sponge can have just as complex genome as any other animal. If we compare genome sizes and the number of genes between different species we can't say that birds have more complex DNA than fish or that fish have more complex DNA than sponges. The evolutionary progression is apparent only on the surface, only in physical structures and it's not clearly evincible in genetic information. Genetic complexity is not related to structural complexity.

You are making the mistake of portraying evolution as a ladder. You are pretending as if sponges stopped evolving millions of years ago. They didn't. They are as evolved as we are. They, like us, are the product of billions of years of evolution. There is every reason to suspect that their genomes have grown in complexity over that time period, just like other lineages.

The most interesting part about sponges is that amongst their thousands of genes, there are many that they should not have: "Curiously, the cells of a sponge bear little resemblance to cells found in the rest of the animal kingdom. For example, sponges lack neurons; however, the sponge genome reveals the presence of many genes found in neurons."
“What are the genes even doing there if they don't have neurons or synapses? We still don't know the answer to that question." said researcher Kenneth S. Kosik. (University of California-Santa Barbara)
Answering Kenneth S. Kosik's question is very easy. These genes are there, because the sponge genome isn't evolved from simple bacterial DNA, but it is degenerated from a genome of a primordial stem cell. They don't have neurons but later, more advanced creatures do, so those genes had to be there.

That is quite the leap you made there. Obviously, these homologs have function that are necessary for the survival of sponges. Why do I say this? Because they have not accumulated knockout mutations over the millions of years since our lineages went their separate ways. These sequences are conserved, so they do have function, and they have function that has nothing to do with neurons in modern sponges.

The mistake you are making here is assuming that the function found in humans is the function that these genes were meant to have. This is a VERY biased assumption.

This is the theory of Pre-Coded Equilibrium

It is riddled with mistakes and poor assumptions. The sponge example is just one of those mistakes. The idea that a single genome can hold the information for all the biodiversity we see today is another major mistake.

 

[Hunor999]

Show me evidence for this then.

- The presence of genes that are older than the structures they control
- C-value paradox
- Lack of correlation between reproduction rates and macro evolution
- Lack of gradual transition in fossil records
- Failure of genetic algorithms in computer science (they can be used only for optimization)
- The complexity of basic, necessary components of life
- Sudden appearance of traits in fossil records (like the 400 million years old footprints)
- This theory provides satisfactory explanation for sexual reproduction and cambrian explosion while the Darwinian one doesn't.

I can go on forever, but you would rather read the blog Pre Coded Equlibrium, if you ask google you'll find the site.

So since you say that we can remove some of these non-coding portions without affecting the development of an organism, and that this is exactly what we see, are you agreeing with me or what?

It seems you couldn't comprehend this section, What I meant was this:
If non coding DNA contains information about the entire evolution, then you can cut these sections without effecting the development and life of that organism. And this is what PCE assumes: that there are instructions in DNA not only for the development of a single organism, but for a much bigger project, for the development for an entire ecosystem, and these instructions were initially given in the first cells.

We're not talking about mechanical factories that went through the design process of intelligent minds before they even existed.

You are completely wrong here, what we are talking about are precisely mechanical factories. This is the most accurate description of these molecular structures. They look like mechanical factories, they work like mechanical factories and the only thing that makes you think these are not designed is your darwinian preconceptions.

Here is the bacterial Flagellum. It is a spinning whiplike tail that is often cited as an example of irreducible complexity. Creationists said that if you remove a single part then it ceases to function, and thus could not have evolved.

THIS website makes such a claim, and as we shall see, that claim is wrong.

THIS page discusses the flagellum in a fair bit of detail, and shows how it is likely that it evolved from a secretory system. THIS page also discusses how the flagellum evolved.

So you can see, it is not an assumption in this case (and I deliberately chose the case where evolution had the toughest job of explaining it). It is not an assumption when a scientist says that some body part or some gene once had a different function and was co-opted to take on a different role.

I was not talking about the bacterial flagellum, but as you brought it up, I must say it has not been proved that it can evolve naturally. All evolutionists should do is to take a population of bacteria that posses only the rod of the flagellum then provide an environment that favors fast movement and if they can make them evolve bacterial flagellum then they win, but they can't do that. You and they may say that it takes much longer time than what we have but it's not an excuse. Bacteria reproduce at least one billion times faster than vertebrates, one billion times more mutation and selection happen in their genome than in ours. If they cant produce that tiny bacterial flagellum by billions of mutations and billions of selection (and you can reach those numbers within a very short period of time in the case of bacteria) why should we believe that the entire complexity of a human body has been accumulated that way?

Well, yes, you should have been more specific. Darwin's model - aka Natural Selection - is well documented and has a wealth of supporting information.

You are wrong again. Natural selection and mutation can be modeled and simulated by computers, if it can create a program code as the DNA it should be able to satisfy our much less complex needs of programming. If this method would work we wouldn't need programmers any more, but they don't work. Recent computers are so powerful that we can simulate billions of years of evolution, but it can't produce innovative, creative solutions what we see in nature, for those, we still need the hard intellectual work of programmers.

 

[Hunor999]

No, it isn't. You can't produce the biodiversity we see today from a single genome. You have to change that genome through mutation in order to get different species.

I don't have time to answer every poorly thought out objection you guys make so this is gonna be my last response for now:

You are wrong. All the diversity of the cells in your body is the product of a single genome. A cell in your bone is entirely different from the cells in your heart yet they have the very same DNA. This also explains why we have so similar genomes with such distant animals as the sponge. Your argument is invalid.

 

[Loudmouth]

- The presence of genes that are older than the structures they control

The genes found in sponges do not control neurons.

What you seem to be arguing is that evolution is wrong because genes evolve different functions in different lineages.

- C-value paradox
- Lack of correlation between reproduction rates and macro evolution

Please explain.

- Lack of gradual transition in fossil records

Gradual transitions in hominid evolution:
CC050: Hominid transition

- Failure of genetic algorithms in computer science (they can be used only for optimization)

"A field-programmable gate array, or FPGA for short, is a special type of circuit board with an array of logic cells, each of which can act as any type of logic gate, connected by flexible interlinks which can connect cells. Both of these functions are controlled by software, so merely by loading a special program into the board, it can be altered on the fly to perform the functions of any one of a vast variety of hardware devices.

Dr. Adrian Thompson has exploited this device, in conjunction with the principles of evolution, to produce a prototype voice-recognition circuit that can distinguish between and respond to spoken commands using only 37 logic gates - a task that would have been considered impossible for any human engineer. He generated random bit strings of 0s and 1s and used them as configurations for the FPGA, selecting the fittest individuals from each generation, reproducing and randomly mutating them, swapping sections of their code and passing them on to another round of selection. His goal was to evolve a device that could at first discriminate between tones of different frequencies (1 and 10 kilohertz), then distinguish between the spoken words "go" and "stop".

This aim was achieved within 3000 generations, but the success was even greater than had been anticipated. The evolved system uses far fewer cells than anything a human engineer could have designed, and it does not even need the most critical component of human-built systems - a clock. How does it work? Thompson has no idea, though he has traced the input signal through a complex arrangement of feedback loops within the evolved circuit. In fact, out of the 37 logic gates the final product uses, five of them are not even connected to the rest of the circuit in any way - yet if their power supply is removed, the circuit stops working. It seems that evolution has exploited some subtle electromagnetic effect of these cells to come up with its solution, yet the exact workings of the complex and intricate evolved structure remain a mystery (Davidson 1997)."
Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation

- The complexity of basic, necessary components of life

You have not shown what the original life was like, how complex it was, or the basics of its chemistry.

- Sudden appearance of traits in fossil records (like the 400 million years old footprints)

An artifact of only searching a tiny, tiny, miniscule portion of the fossil record, and a fossil record that is not preserved in its entirety.

- This theory provides satisfactory explanation for sexual reproduction and cambrian explosion while the Darwinian one doesn't.

No, it doesn't. You can't produce modern biodiversity from a single genome. It requires mutations.

I can go on forever, but you would rather read the blog Pre Coded Equlibrium, if you ask google you'll find the site.

Is it any wonder that it isn't published in a peer reviewed journal? It is pseudoscience.

It seems you couldn't comprehend this section, What I meant was this:
If non coding DNA contains information about the entire evolution, then you can cut these sections without effecting the development and life of that organism. And this is what PCE assumes: that there are instructions in DNA not only for the development of a single organism, but for a much bigger project, for the development for an entire ecosystem, and these instructions were initially given in the first cells.

Those instructions are not there, otherwise there would not be a correlation between morphology and DNA sequence. Chimps and humans are different because our DNA sequence is different. Humans and dogs are different because our DNA sequence is different. The same genome can not produce both humans and dogs.

Non coding DNA is primarily left over DNA from past evolutionary events that the cell has not removed. For most eukaryotes, there is no real selection for a compact genome like those seen in prokaryotes. Therefore, extra DNA is packed around from generation to generation.

You are completely wrong here, what we are talking about are precisely mechanical factories. This is the most accurate description of these molecular structures. They look like mechanical factories, they work like mechanical factories and the only thing that makes you think these are not designed is your darwinian preconceptions.

False. It is the evidence that makes me think that life evolved.

I was not talking about the bacterial flagellum, but as you brought it up, I must say it has not been proved that it can evolve naturally.

It has not been shown that it can't evolve naturally.

All evolutionists should do is to take a population of bacteria that posses only the rod of the flagellum then provide an environment that favors fast movement and if they can make them evolve bacterial flagellum then they win, but they can't do that. You and they may say that it takes much longer time than what we have but it's not an excuse.

It's not an excuse. It's the truth. We can't expect millions of years of evolution to occur in a few years in the lab in a very limited population.

Bacteria reproduce at least one billion times faster than vertebrates, one billion times more mutation and selection happen in their genome than in ours. If they cant produce that tiny bacterial flagellum by billions of mutations and billions of selection (and you can reach those numbers within a very short period of time in the case of bacteria) why should we believe that the entire complexity of a human body has been accumulated that way?

We should believe it because that is what the evidence demonstrates.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

You are wrong again. Natural selection and mutation can be modeled and simulated by computers, if it can create a program code as the DNA it should be able to satisfy our much less complex needs of programming. If this method would work we wouldn't need programmers any more, but they don't work. Recent computers are so powerful that we can simulate billions of years of evolution, but it can't produce innovative, creative solutions what we see in nature, for those, we still need the hard intellectual work of programmers.

No computer is powerful enough to model all of the interactions of the molecules in a cell, much less a multicellular organism. No computer can predict the morphological impact of a single point mutation, gene duplication, or indel. Computers can not simulate evolution, contrary to your claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are wrong. All the diversity of the cells in your body is the product of a single genome.

However, all of the biodiversity of all life is not the product of a single genome. That is what I said. I NEVER said that different cells in a multicellular organism have different genomes.

A cell in your bone is entirely different from the cells in your heart yet they have the very same DNA. This also explains why we have so similar genomes with such distant animals as the sponge. Your argument is invalid.

We are different from a sponge because our DNA is different. I am not wrong.

 

[Tiberius]

- The presence of genes that are older than the structures they control

Which, as I stated is not a problem if those genes were performing a different function before those structures evolved.

- C-value paradox

As in the speed of light? What does that have to do with evolution?

- Lack of correlation between reproduction rates and macro evolution

How have you determined what the rate should be?

- Lack of gradual transition in fossil records

The fossil record displays a large amount of transitional forms.

- Failure of genetic algorithms in computer science (they can be used only for optimization)

This doesn't mean that it can't work in the real world.

- The complexity of basic, necessary components of life

So?

- Sudden appearance of traits in fossil records (like the 400 million years old footprints)

Again, so?

- This theory provides satisfactory explanation for sexual reproduction and cambrian explosion while the Darwinian one doesn't.

Science has very good explanations for the cambrian explosion and for sexual reproduction.

I can go on forever, but you would rather read the blog Pre Coded Equlibrium, if you ask google you'll find the site.

You haven't even started yet. You;ve just given false information and arguments from incredulity.

It seems you couldn't comprehend this section, What I meant was this:

If non coding DNA contains information about the entire evolution, then you can cut these sections without effecting the development and life of that organism. And this is what PCE assumes: that there are instructions in DNA not only for the development of a single organism, but for a much bigger project, for the development for an entire ecosystem, and these instructions were initially given in the first cells.

First of all, what is PCE?

Secondly, I doubt you have any justification for assuming that non-coding parts of the DNA contain information about where evolution is headed.

Besides, if DNA a billion years ago had information about what they'd evolve in the present times, why didn't they just evolve it then?

You are completely wrong here, what we are talking about are precisely mechanical factories. This is the most accurate description of these molecular structures. They look like mechanical factories, they work like mechanical factories and the only thing that makes you think these are not designed is your darwinian preconceptions.

Well, mechanical factories we build can't replicate themselves. There are a lot of differences.

I was not talking about the bacterial flagellum, but as you brought it up, I must say it has not been proved that it can evolve naturally. All evolutionists should do is to take a population of bacteria that posses only the rod of the flagellum then provide an environment that favors fast movement and if they can make them evolve bacterial flagellum then they win, but they can't do that. You and they may say that it takes much longer time than what we have but it's not an excuse. Bacteria reproduce at least one billion times faster than vertebrates, one billion times more mutation and selection happen in their genome than in ours. If they cant produce that tiny bacterial flagellum by billions of mutations and billions of selection (and you can reach those numbers within a very short period of time in the case of bacteria) why should we believe that the entire complexity of a human body has been accumulated that way?

Of course. If we can't do it, it must be impossible. What a devastating blow of logic!

You are wrong again. Natural selection and mutation can be modeled and simulated by computers, if it can create a program code as the DNA it should be able to satisfy our much less complex needs of programming. If this method would work we wouldn't need programmers any more, but they don't work. Recent computers are so powerful that we can simulate billions of years of evolution, but it can't produce innovative, creative solutions what we see in nature, for those, we still need the hard intellectual work of programmers.

Given that natural selection can - and has - been directly observed and studied in nature, I;d say natural selection is real.