promoting my ebook: Logic against Evolution

[person123]

"You are strangely fixated on the amount of information in DNA. But evolution is all about improving an organism's chances of survival and ability to procreate (pass its genes down to the next generation). Furthermore an organism's long-term survival often hinges on its ability to adjust to different conditions. The blind cave fish is a splendid example of evolution in action, but due to your misconceptions, you see it as "devolution." You clearly don't understand the subject, which is not surprising in itself. The irony is that you have written a book and say things like "I can see that evolution is just silly." You betray your ignorance at every turn."
No, this is not the main purpose of the "evolution theory". The main purpose is to provide an explanation for the origin of species, and not "adaptation of the species".
So this is what you evolutionists do, you mix it up together. You use it to explain how organisms adapt to their enviroment, and then quietely and unnoticably you also use it as explanation for the origin of new species... "you see this fish lost its eyes... so that proves it can evolve into mammal"... no, this is not how it works.

[person123]

Here's another head-scratcher:

you are missing my point... you can arrange all the human made products also in a similar tree, it doesn't mean that they have evolved by random processes. You have a bicycle, then a motorbike, a car, a truck, an airplane. You have iphone 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.. The fact that you can arrange it in a tree diagram doesn't mean they have evolved.
You have to prove that the actual evolution mechanism of random mutations and natural selection can really be the creative force behind it. Simply putting organisms in a tree diagram doesn't mean they have evolved, just like putting a bycicle, a motorbike and a car in a tree diagram doesn't mean they have evolved.

An evolutionary family tree is not itself evidence for evolution. It merely is a visual for what the evidence shows, that all life is related. A chart showing different iterations of the iPhone only shows a progression of technology. Beyond that, I must be missing your point. If you wish to argue that the evolutionary tree is wrong, you would have to address the fossil evidence and DNA studies that the evolutionary tree is based on. Right?

Excuse me first you say that the tree don't prove evolution... but then you call it "evolutionary tree"... so based on what you call it "evolutionary"? Don't call it that way then.
And this is exactly my point, you said it youself initially: "It merely is a visual for what the evidence shows, that all life is related.".
But "related" doesn't have to mean "evolved", just like all the iphones being related doesn't mean they evolved... you understand my point perfectly.

[LanDroid]

I don't like this website, because it has so much data that no one understans, so people always use it as a cover. I'm 100 percent sure that you personally after reading the article from that link, can't understand what they are talking about there and how it proves anything. Evolutionists always use this website. It's like a religious person will respond "go read the bible, the answer is somewhere there".
This is not the first time people used this website while arguing with me, and this is just a trick. Now be honest and admit that you yourself never actually read this article, and even if you did, you didn't understand how it proves that DNA can produce new information by random mutations and natural selection.

You complain that scientists do not provide evidence about random mutations. But when such studies are presented, you do not understand and summarily dismiss them. We see the contradictions where you refuse to read books on evolution to learn more about it, cannot even define it, and dismiss information you don't understand. You appear to be in a non-evolving stasis on evolution, having strong and unusual opinions, but incapable of learning anything new about it.

[person123]

I know that website. It doesn't produce what you all claim that it produce. If you were honest, then you would admit it. To claim that that website proves evolution, is the same as to claim that bible proves god.
I want someone here to tell me that he went to that article, read it, and understood how it explains that random mutations can create new complexity. There is no such person here, but the worst thing is that no one here will admit it. But even though you all will claim that I have to read it, and I have to understand it, and I have to see how it proves evolution... this is some fanatic stuff here. This is some kind of cult.

[DWill]

I know that website. It doesn't produce what you all claim that it produce. If you were honest, then you would admit it. To claim that that website proves evolution, is the same as to claim that bible proves god.
I want someone here to tell me that he went to that article, read it, and understood how it explains that random mutations can create new complexity. There is no such person here, but the worst thing is that no one here will admit it. But even though you all will claim that I have to read it, and I have to understand it, and I have to see how it proves evolution... this is some fanatic stuff here. This is some kind of cult.

We could leave complexity out of it, I would think. Evolution isn't necessarily toward more and more complex organisms in each instance of change. Why would it be? Over the long haul, then of course we see that more complex organisms emerged, but adapting to the environment with naturally occurring variations doesn't require leaps in complexity. That's my non-scientist's take on it, at least. Complexity is one of those things hard to judge, anyway. Are we humans the most complex animal, for instance? Depends on what you are looking at--physiology, brain, size of genome, or other measure.

I see that accepting evolution through natural selection is mind-stretching, involving spans of time we have difficulty comprehending. The randomness of the process, I think you over-stress. I also see signs of an argument from incredulity in what you say. That we are unable to believe something isn't by itself a good reason to reject it. You may not be able to understand how natural selection works (neither may I, in real detail), but the theory of evolution still works based on what we can easily observe or surmise. It isn't necessary to physically observe species change in order to think it is very real (for that matter, that we haven't observed it might not be true). Science proceeds by inference all the time.

Trying to set the clock back 200 years is a big task. Well before Darwin, the idea of species evolution was in the air, pushed by the new knowledge that the earth was millions, not thousands, of years old. When Darwin published his book, many educated people were primed to fully accept his theory. The reason wasn't, contrary to your claim, that they needed a new religion to replace one they could no longer accept. Generally, believers accommodated their Christianity to evolution.

[person123]

We have 7-14 megabytes of unique data in our DNA that sets us apart from apes. Now if you say that there was no complexity involved in producing this 7-14 megabytes, then it's not suspposed to be a problem for scientists to show how those 14 megabytes could write themselves by random mutations... 7-14 megabytes is not a lot of data, it's like 2-3 songs.
This is a very simple and specific question, that is needed to be answered in order for evolution to be taken seriously. But if scientists can't explain the origin of 7-14 megabytes, what can they explain?
And this is why I say that evolution is a religion. Because you people who are the followers of this religion, your first question had to be "ok what are those 7-14 megabytes and how they came to be?". But no, since evolution is not science but a religion, therefore its followers don't think rationally, instead they look for anything that could reinforce their faith.
That's why you would avoide talking about those 7-14 megabytes, and instead talk about anything else. Why there are 98-99% of identical DNA? Why the fossil record shows that species are related? Why cavefish lost its sight? And then you use all this and misinterpert it in order to reinforce your faith.

[Chris OConnor]

Name 3 books you have read about evolutionary theory.

[geo]

We have 7-14 megabytes of unique data in our DNA that sets us apart from apes. Now if you say that there was no complexity involved in producing this 7-14 megabytes, then it's not suspposed to be a problem for scientists to show how those 14 megabytes could write themselves by random mutations... 7-14 megabytes is not a lot of data, it's like 2-3 songs.
This is a very simple and specific question . . .

You could easily ask why is fox DNA different from rabbit DNA. The answer would be the same, since DNA is the unique genetic code of each living organism. You might also wonder, as I do, how an onion has more than 12 times more DNA than a human. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/ ... an-you-do/

I'm not sure why this specific question is so crucial for you when you have already dismissed other forms of evidence for evolution that are far easier to understand. DNA is a rather complex subject, and to understand the answer to your question, I would assume one would need to have a pretty good grasp of genetics. You seem to be looking for simple answers to complex questions. And when confronted by complexity, you simply dismiss it.

I'm curious though: where you got the information that we have 7-14 megabytes of unique data that sets us apart from apes? I've never seen DNA information expressed in megabytes.

[person123]

You have to distinguish between different types of evidence and its significance. Not every evidence is alike.

"You could easily ask why is fox DNA different from rabbit DNA. The answer would be the same, since DNA is the unique genetic code of each living organism. You might also wonder, as I do, how an onion has more than 12 times more DNA than a human."

Yes each species have a unique DNA, we have to prove that it could be produced by random mutations.
The fact that onion has 12 more DNA doesn't have to mean a thing. Probably a random mutation made the onion to replicate its DNA multiple times, but it doesn't mean that it is unique DNA.
It's like you have a book with 500 pages and a book with 100 pages. Now during printing a mistake occured, and they printed the 100 pages book 9 times more than needed. Now your 100 pages book looks like 1000 pages book, but it contains only 100 pages of information. So even though the 1000 pages book has twice pages, the 500 pages book contains 5 times more data.
SO the fact that onion has 12 times more DNA than us, doesn't mean it has 12 times more information than us.

"I'm not sure why this specific question is so crucial for you when you have already dismissed other forms of evidence for evolution that are far easier to understand."

What evidence? That all organisms are related and that fish can lose sight? I already explained that it may have an alternative explanation. In order for evolution to be possible, you have to show that random mutations can creat new unique information.
Now you claim that one needs a good grasp of genetics in order to understand how random mutations can produce new complexity... so why haven't we heard about it? That small incomprehensible research from that website is all that scientific community came up with? So why isn't that research famous?
I mean when they discovered that amino acids in the test tube in the 50's they made big noise about it, that it supposedly showed how cells could emerge by natural processes... so why haven't we hear about a research that would support the notion of new information being created by random mutation?
Why it is only on some small website that nobody knows about?
Where are all the books and videos titled "how random mutations produce new DNA information"??? Where all of it? In some secret vault in the white house?

"I'm curious though: where you got the information that we have 7-14 megabytes of unique data that sets us apart from apes? I've never seen DNA information expressed in megabytes."

Simple calculation, just google it. They say human DNA is roughly 700 megabytes. SO 1-2% equal to 7-14 megabytes.
But there are different estimates, some say our DNA is less than 700 mb, some say it's more.

[person123]

BTW i compared previously 7-14 megabytes to 2-3 songs. What I should have compared it to is text.
So 7-14 megabytes can be 3000-6000 pages of text. Now that's a lot of text.