One Mopologist's Debunking of Evolution

[_honorentheos]

This sort of 'proofs' is contributing what to human progress?

Fruit Flies and You 101

[Guest]

del

[_Bret Ripley]

He seems very confident that no one has ever refuted his theory

Ann Elk seems very confident that no one has ever refuted her theory about the brontosaurus.

[_Ceeboo]

I would even bet that Ceeboo could put on his "evolutionist hat" and dispatch the "theory" fairly quickly.

... and ... (but?)
I hate his avatar.

Preposterous!


Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Bret Ripley]

I hate his avatar.

Preposterous!

You know I love you, Ceeboo (in a manly, non-sexual, howboutthemredsox kind of way) but your avatar messes with my serenity. I get migraines -- and while I wouldn't say your avatar is a trigger, it does tend to push my headaches over the edge. (And no, I refuse to put you on 'ignore'!)

[_TrashcanMan79]

As luck would have it, I happened across a thread in a Facebook group where the author of the article linked to in the OP is commenting about this thread. Because I am interested in seeing where this discussion might lead, I post his response:

Other than condescending sarcasm by supposed intellects, nothing specific to refute my simple point, that any difference in whole numbers of chromosomes where one gamete has an exclusive extra chromosome, there is no fertility. The only exceptions, which your intellectual friends missed, are duplicates shared by both gametes, such as in the Trisomy. Even then, fertility is very low, let alone how survival for such offspring was even lower for pre-modern times. With changes in numbers, we are not talking process; we are talking event. That means, all the time you want to give won't be a factor, other than repeated attempts to make it happen.

If anyone is interested in taking your comments directly to the Facebook discussion, PM me and I'll send you the link to the group.

[Guest]

As luck would have it, I happened across a thread in a Facebook group where the author of the article linked to in the OP is commenting about this thread. Because I am interested in seeing where this discussion might lead, I post his response:

Other than condescending sarcasm by supposed intellects, nothing specific to refute my simple point, that any difference in whole numbers of chromosomes where one gamete has an exclusive extra chromosome, there is no fertility. The only exceptions, which your intellectual friends missed, are duplicates shared by both gametes, such as in the Trisomy. Even then, fertility is very low, let alone how survival for such offspring was even lower for pre-modern times. With changes in numbers, we are not talking process; we are talking event. That means, all the time you want to give won't be a factor, other than repeated attempts to make it happen.

If anyone is interested in taking your comments directly to the Facebook discussion, PM me and I'll send you the link to the group.

I would doubt that folks here have much interest in engaging and individual (especially second hand) who gets the ideas with which he can completely debunk the theory evolution from creationist websites. He would likely be able to do little more than copy stuff from one or more such websites in defense of "his" theory.

If he is interested in defending his claim to have insights that would completely overturn more than a century of work on evolutionary theory (keeping in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof), then he should come here and do so.

While he may well not believe, or even understand, what it is he would be told by folks here who do understand the genetic basis of speciation, it would not take long to show others who may be interested that his reports of the demise of evolution are greatly exaggerated.

As to his central claim, which EAllusion has already shown is just plain wrong, we could start off by citing several papers, which he must have missed, that directly contradict his central and not very relevant point.

The problem with his ideas, in general, is that he has made a number of bad assumptions (because he does not understand what he is talking about and has apparently never tried out his "theory" on someone who does).

So, let him come here and defend his theory, point by point, and we will see how far he gets against the literature that he has either not read, or not understood.

[_Nightlion]

Just so you know I did not blow your links off completely tell me why believing that the premortial earth had precisely what HAD to be there for your projection to work is not more fantastic than believing in a creator God?

There was no indication in my description of what HAD to be there, only a description of what WAS there based on a lot of good evidence from planetary studies and the geological record.

So to answer your question, since it WAS there, the chances of it being there were exceedingly high.

Fully BS Sounds like a baby tantrum for evidence.........it just was I tell ya it was!

[_Nightlion]

The most interesting thing about this link is you have a person who thinks he has a knockdown proof against evolutionary transitions in populations with different chromosomal numbers with a what should be a well-known set of facts. Yet this proof has both escaped thousands upon thousands of Ph.D. level biologists, and more interestingly, professional anti-evolutionists who will throw every argument they can at the theory. Imagine the kind of unreflective self-importance it takes to hold that position.

Anyway, as others point out, a lot of wrong is packed into reasonably long post there. His core argument, however, is simply that it's not possible interbreeding between individuals with variations in their chromosomal numbers. This is just false. The failure of meiosis in mules has nothing to do with the different number of chromosomes per se. It is because the chromosomes are not homologous and so cannot form pairs. Otherwise the kind of scenario he thinks cannot happen happens in nature all the time. You know his artificial sounding conversation with a biology professor is fictional if only because a biology professor would easily be able to point that out.

More pissing of pants! In viruses which according to DrW are NOT considered life anyways mutations hold. WOW!
Show the science where a primate/mammal chromosome develops a mutation and how that mutation gets established in succeeding generations when he NEEDS to pair that DNA information with a perfectly matched sexual partner. Pretending it can is just silly.

So many scientist failed to see it because they are in on the fix. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[_Ceeboo]

You know I love you, Ceeboo (in a manly, non-sexual, howboutthemredsox kind of way)

Love you too, Bret!

but your avatar messes with my serenity. I get migraines -- and while I wouldn't say your avatar is a trigger, it does tend to push my headaches over the edge.

Looking for another avatar as I type this.
Consider it changed!

Peace,
Ceeboo