Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Question #1: What is the most prevalent meme within the paradigm of Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism?

Question #2: What might be the most effective method of illuminating the meme(s) of Darwinism, and perhaps helping to replace it/them with better knowledge?

Discussion: Virtually everyone accepts the evidence for survival-of-the-fittest type of “evolution” (to reduce keystrokes, I will refer to this as sotfe beyond this point). However, more than a hundred years ago, scientists who believed in Darwinism began to recognize a categorical error of thought which was commonplace: the equation or conflation of sotfe with the arrival-of-the-fittest type of “evolution” (aotfe).
Today, prominent evolutionists frequently fail to distinguish the categories, and to rely on the veracity of sotfe to support the veracity of aotfe. The missing key to this muddied puzzle lies in an understanding of mechanisms. And perhaps the greatest irony displayed by the scientific community is that people who have never tried to build something (i.e. a gene) have been making such bold claims regarding how it could have been built by non-intelligent means (i.e. naturalism). To emphasize the key difference, and the key to dismantling the meme(s) of Darwinism, we must ask two more questions:

Question #3: When sotfe or “natural selection” takes place, what happens to the collective genome of a population and to the collective genome of life? In short, when sotfe occurs, does gene-loss occur or does gene-gain occur? If you are not clear on this, you might look up the term “bottleneck”, as it applies to evolution theory. You might also consider how common the phenomenon of extinction of species has been under sotfe.

Question #4: Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism are built on a belief that life began as a very simple form and gradually advanced to more and more complex forms over time. Now, translate this putative process to requisite gene forms and ask yourself what it must be saying. But, how in the world can a process which must rely on some form of gene-gain be supported by a process which is now well-known for exactly the opposite?
Natural Selection has to have something to select from. Where did those selections come from? Given our current knowledge of cell biology and genetics, the selections certainly could not have come from Natural Selection. A person walking through a cafeteria and selecting certain dishes should never equate their selection process with the design and creation of the dishes themselves. But unfortunately, this represents one of the largest memes of Darwinism--that natural selection is a magician of unlimited means which can create virtually anything, given enough time. The problem is that time cannot represent the savior of evolution, because the more time which passes, the more gene-loss which occurs through natural selection and through random mutations. For those who might want to explore this idea in more detail, I would recommend researching the concept of “genetic entropy” and also the concept of “orphan genes”, while keeping in mind the late Stephen J. Gould’s designation of “higher taxa” rather than “species”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

The problem with this is that we have already seen the process of evolution in action, new subspecies of plants and animals have appeared in recorded history (artifitial evolution and selection is used all the time by farmers look at bananas) and we can simulate evolution in computers (this is in fact a very used type of learning ai) so the process of evolution, even if it couldnt have created all life, HAS to exist.

Let's get one thing straight here before we go, Evolution IS Naturalism, that's what makes "found in nature" so prevalent in Natural Science. What we do not find in nature, aka something that has not yet been reproduced, replicated, and peer-reviewed in science, is a cognizant builder.

2) >Doesnt know how a gene works
>Claims scientists are wrong for suggesting
k den

3) The collective genome stays more or less the same; what occurs is the gene frequency of the genome fluctuates every single generation in every single species. The gene frequency of us is ever-so-slightly different than the gene frequency of our parents. But we should expect this, because Meiosis shuffles our genes and recombinates them based on several mechanisms that takes paragraphs to explain.

4) Selection depends on the environment the organism is from and is different for each species, even within the same microclimate. Each species have a goal and that is to survive and reproduce. The ones that do are the ones who get to pass on their traits. Every generation gets more fine-tuned to that environment, making the species better capable to survive in that environment better than those who are slightly less capable. On a molecular level, this causes genes to become slightly different every new generation. Yes, with more mechanisms and more complexity calls for more genes, and these can be gained over a period of time, but it's not so cut and dry as saying Natural Selection gives you more genes. if this were the case, humans would have the least amount of genes, while Archaea would have the most. We clearly do not see that in Nature.

So a few things.

"arrival-of-the-fittest"

I'm confused as to what this is exactly saying. It seems to be saying when the evolution finally leads to the the "fittest individuals". This would imply that there actually is a constant "fittest type". This would only hold true in a situation where all variables are held constant indefinitely, which is generally not a condition found in nature. A form that may be seen as "more fit" than the others in certain conditions may become a huge detriment if there is a change in conditions. There is almost never a constant "most fit" individual, only individuals that are more fit than others for a given set of conditions.

EDIT: Wanted to keep above because it's important but did actually look up what "Arrival of the Fittest" is supposed to mean. From what I could gather it is the claim that, though natural selection explains why the fittest individuals within a populations survive, it does not explain where the variation within a population comes from. As pointed out by Freakenstien is that there are genetic differences between individuals even within one generation. New combinations of genes can create new phenotypes, random errors can cause new traits to emerge (in some cases, things like polyploidy in plants create a new species, depending on your definition of "species"). These errors can be as basic as minor DNA replica errors to horizontal gene transfer by a virus.

Abiogenisis deals with the origin of living things from non-living things. It is not a contradiction to think that life may have been sparked by some greater other, but that once "created" evolution would lead to diversification of its decedents. Secondly, we like to think of there being a clear line between living and non-living, but it's blurrier than many would like to admit. A virus meets some definitions of of being "alive" but fails others.

As for actual questions:

1) a meme is just an idea. If I had to guess, "Organisms with traits better to survive and reproduce in given conditions are more likely to do so than those that lack these traits." is the most common "meme" i suppose

2) You would literally just be replacing one "meme" for another.

3) As new mutations occur at random, and most mutations lead to detrimental changes, generally in a single generation (from conception), the genetic variation is higher than it is when the offspring reproduce. Individuals that are unable to survive in the womb (for whatever reason, but here specifically due to genetic mutations) will clearly not leave offspring. Also, in most cases resources are limiting and multiple factors can lead to death before reproduction, leading to some new phenotype to likely be removed from the population, either by being unfit, or just random bad luck. However, most populations are composed of multiple generations, which helps to prevent massive changes in population gene changes. This, of course, changes in cases where there is massive die offs will remove diversity at random by the simple fact that large numbers of individuals are no longer part of the population.

Alternatively, in cases where there are large niches left unfilled and open to exploitation, such as with Cichlids in Lake Victoria, traits that would normally be unfavorable in an established ecosystem now enable individuals to exploit resources with less competition. In cases such as these, huge phenotypic explosions occur. As no one group is completely well suited for the available niches, individuals that may be ill suited for one niche may still be fit enough to survive under a different niche. Additionally if the original if the original individuals that started to exploit this are related, it is possible to get phenomena known as a Hybrid Swarm.

4) "how in the world can a process which must rely on some form of gene-gain be supported by a process which is now well-known for exactly the opposite? "

I'm confused where you're getting "a process which is now well-known for exactly the opposite" from. Also, are you referring to genetic diversity within a population, or genetic material within an individual? Neither one of these are "well known" for gene-loss.

"Natural Selection has to have something to select from. Where did those selections come from? Given our current knowledge of cell biology and genetics, the selections certainly could not have come from Natural Selection. "

I have a sneaking suspicion you mean to say "variety/diversity" where you say "selection" when not in conjunction with the word "natural."

"The problem is that time cannot represent the savior of evolution, because the more time which passes, the more gene-loss which occurs through natural selection and through random mutations"
…
Random mutations can both lead to the removal of genes from populations as well as adding new genes. This is extremely remedial knowledge. Be it though an accidental reading of a single nucleic acidic to and individual plant becoming a genetically isolated polyploid in a single generation.

So, to reduce confusion, let me clarify some terminology. The term “arrival of the fittest” is referring to the arrival of all of those groups of living things which Gould referred to as “the higher taxa”, i.e. the Grey Wolf, from which most of us believe that canids descended (all dogs, foxes, dingos, etc.). The salient question is not whether or not “evolution” took place in the descent of these things. If you only focus on that straw-man argument, then you have completely missed the point! No one is denying that descent with modification (based upon environmental pressures etc.) is a fact (not necessarily agreeing that it has magical and unlimited potential, however). The salient point that Gould and other honest scientists have wrestled with is that descent with modification (i.e. natural selection) represents an entirely different category of process or mechanism than whatever it was that caused the origins of the Grey Wolf (and many other “higher taxa” ancestry groups).

I would recommend reading Gould’s actual article: Gould, Stephen Jay. 1980. “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?” Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1 pp. 119-130.

Of course, the other terminology which always rears its ugly head is “evolution”. I would challenge everyone to stop and ask yourself an honest question: have you come to accept this word as descriptive of a cause or an effect? This is perhaps where the most prevalent Darwinian meme exists. For example, here is an actual quote from a recent “scientific article”;

“…rapid evolution can result in changes in both qualitative and quantitative character[istic]s.”

Notice the cause and effect relationship: “changes” is the effect and “rapid evolution” is purported to be the cause. This represents circular reasoning and the reliance upon tautology, not science. No true mechanism of causation was revealed and hence no evidence was offered by which we might judge the validity of any paradigm of origins. Source:

Herrel, Anthony, et al. “Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with exploitation of a different dietary resource”, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Mar 25; 105(12): 4792–4795. Published online 2008 Mar 14. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0711998105
Web link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2290806/

In reality, “evolution” is nothing more than our imperfect and highly reductionistic term which merely refers to the fact that we have observed a change in something over time. It does NOT represent a methodologic or mechanistic description of why or how such change occurred. Hence, “evolution” represents an observed effect only, NOT the cause. If you pay attention, you will realize how often this very simple truth is violated, even in the so-called scientific literature. Hence, much of the propagation of Darwinism has been improper, relying upon the meme which confuses cause and effect.

Another classic example of cause and effect confusion:

“Through evolution, new species arise through the process of speciation…”

This is a quote from a web site called Darwin Was Right (see below). Do you recognize the circular reasoning and obfuscation of terminology? Change is caused by evolution and evolution causes change, and species are caused by speciation. In literary terms, this is called the creation of tautology, not science. Nothing factual regarding mechanisms of gene-origination has been revealed by such tactics.

Author unknown. Web-site DARWINWASRIGHT.ORG, The evidence for evolution, page “About Evolution”, first line of second paragraph, viewed by me on 5-26-2107.
http://www.darwinwasright.org/extinction.html

Do you recognize how easily mere propaganda masquerades as scientific evidence? Do you recognize how the memes of Darwinism have been so deceptively created and re-created in the minds of so many gullible, unaware and inadequately-educated individuals?

.

"the Grey Wolf, from which most of us believe that canids descended (all dogs, foxes, dingos, etc.)"

I'm not going to lie, I've never seen anyone suggest foxes are descended from grey wolves. Everything I'm seeing suggests that their last had a common ancestor around ~10 million years ago, quite a bit before anything we would consider Canis lupis appeared.

Likewise, when you say "all dogs" I assumed you had meant "domestic dogs", but including foxes in that categorization make me think that you intend to group all members of Canidae as descending from the Gray Wolf, which, as with foxes coming from Gray wolves, nobody I know believes this, as many predate any evidence of Gray Wolves by quite a large span of time.

However, I realize that this is more likely an accident on your part and does not address the intent of the question.

"The salient question is not whether or not “evolution” took place in the descent of these things…[it] is that descent with modification (i.e. natural selection) represents an entirely different category of process or mechanism than whatever it was that caused the origins of the Grey Wolf (and many other “higher taxa” ancestry groups)."

The term "higher taxa" can be used in different ways, but in referencing Gould, I'm going to assume you mean it as "less specific". To take the fox:

Highest taxa is Domain, lowest is Species.

However, I'm confused as to what exactly you mean by "designation of “higher taxa” rather than “species”." and why you keep specifically referring to the Gray Wolf as "higher taxa". Relatively speaking, Gray Wolf is higher taxa than the domestic dog and all other Grey wolf subspecies, but it is lower taxa to Family Canidae.

As such, I'm really not certain what you are trying to say here, other than it sounds like you are someone who likes to group "micro-evolution and macro-evolution" into separate categories. Basically, if I understand what your trying to say, you get how a wolf (or as I explained, not a wolf, but the last common ancestor of all members of Family Canidae) can give rise to all canine species, but you don't understand how a non canine like animal can give rise to a canine-like animal, correct?

The main difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is time. The same processes that leads to say, a population of birds possessing on average slightly longer beaks than the population did three generations ago is the same process that leads to populations whose forms do not resemble their ancestors several thousands of generations ago. Multiple factors go into play. Extinction events that lead to new niches opening are ripe for opportunities for species to exploit. Individuals who have traits to better exploit these empty niches are more likely to survive than when the niche was unavailable. Over the course of changing conditions, and random events, you get changes in the average traits of a population. If you were to compare the individuals between every generation back, in most cases you are not going to notice any real change between the two, not matter how many generations you go back if comparing one generation to the previous. The parents and offspring will look very similar. The further you increase the generation time between the generations to compare, though, the more likely you will notice changes, especially if there are changing conditions the species has to deal with. If you were to compare individuals in between the modern to generation to individuals 100000 generations back, 200000 generations back, 300000 generations back you are going to see the effect of minor changes in the population each generation has add up. It become even more pronounced the more generations you add and the greater the conditions change between these generations. As the Herrel et al. (2008) paper shows, sometimes it doesn't even take 50 generations for noticeable changes in the population to occur if conditions are right.

"have you come to accept this word [evolution] as descriptive of a cause or an effect?"

This is sort of a problem with the English language. Evolution as a word is meant to describe the changes of phenotypes and genotypes in a population, often due to changes in conditions. This change in phenotypes and genotypes within a population (which we just defined as evolution) is why the "average" animal in a population will change across generations. To say evolution causes something to happen is to say the processes behind evolution cause something to happen.

EDIT: Staring for a few hours I think I finally understand that this is the main point you are trying to get at. Keeping the rest up because It's still sort of important but I guess I should go into this more. This was typed up in the last 30 minutes of spending about 5 hours trying to get points addressed so it's quality is't quite the same.

Basically, you're saying that evolution is only describing the observation of change in a population over generations, that it is not the "mechanism" in and of itself of the change. A combination natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, and mutation is the actual agent of change of phenotypes and genotypes in a population. The whole process is described as evolution. Sometimes evolution is itself is described as being the agent of change itself, when it is the effect of the actual agents of change. By this understanding, it seems to me that, to say evolution causes something to happen is to say the processes behind evolution (natural selection, mutation, inbreeding, hybrization) is what causes something to happen. In that case it seems to be a sort of a semantic issue, while for you it seems to be a big deal. Still, I don't see how this is supposed to prove "Do you recognize how easily mere propaganda masquerades as scientific evidence? Do you recognize how the memes of Darwinism have been so deceptively created and re-created in the minds of so many gullible, unaware and inadequately-educated individuals?"

"Change is caused by evolution and evolution causes change"

I'm at a loss as to what you're trying to say. If I replaced change with destruction, and evolution with dynamite I would get "Destruction is caused by dynamite and dynamite causes destruction." As far as I can telly the overall meaning of these two is basically the same. Sure, in literary terms this exact phrasing might have issues, but are you saying that this phrasing makes my statement about dynamite and destruction false? (Edit: see above for what I think you are getting at)

I'm not really familiar logical tautology, so if I'm horribly misunderstanding what you are trying to say, I apologize in advance. The best I can tell is that logical tautology is just a "either it will or it won't" style of statements, that are always true because they cover all bases (I.E. the statement "either it will rain tomorrow, or it won’t rain tomorrow." will always be true because it is a binary choice, and the statement says it either will or will not happen. It is not possible for this statement to be false.)

Nothing in the way you phrased your statements seems to indicate this is what the issue is, and it seems more of an issue with the literary definition of tautology. This definition takes issue with redundancies: An ATM Machine [Automatic Teller Machine machine], I wrote an autobiography about my life [an autobiography is by definition about the author's life]. As I said above, this is an issue of wording, but does not invalidate the statement as being factually wrong.

Probably most importantly, however, it looks like you take more an issue with the literal wording being a bit redundant and confusing, as opposed the the idea it is trying to explain. To be honest, I do agree that it could be worded better. If it were to instead say "Through evolution, new species arise. This process is known as speciation." Would you still take issue with it for the same reasons? The overall main idea is the same between the two of them.

Now as for the tautology in the first post, it seems rather odd out of the entire paper, your hailing of trying to discredit anything hinges solely on the last sentence of the introduction, and not any of actual data, findings, or conclusion. Trey the Explainer mentioned this study in one of his recent videos, so anyone who want's the TL;DR version of the study with less science words than the paper's abstract might check it out (10:31-14:04 is the relevant part)

But as for the bit itself, here is the full context.

"Thus, our data show how rapid phenotypic changes may affect population structure and dynamics through their effect on behavioral ecology and life history of animals. They also show that rapid evolution can result in changes in both qualitative and quantitative characters."

In this study, it shows changes in a population which started from 10 known individuals from 1971 to 2007 (36 years). If a new generation occurs every year, then significant changes in morphology and behavior compared to the original population are already present in less than 40 generations in a species that is able to exploit a new niche.

The sentence in question is specifically referring to a case of "rapid evolution". To word it differently "a relativity small comparative snapshot of a population reacting to a new set of conditions can lead to changes includes both changes in qualitative and quantitative characters.

Jacob, I appreciate the thoughtful dialogue.

One of my primary points is that “science” should be very careful when it comes to explaining cause versus effect. Usually this is true. Yet, millions of examples could be cited where those who are discussing “evolution” violate this. For example, in the lengthy article regarding Italian Wall Lizards, absolutely no genetic basis is given for the true cause behind the merely observed changes. Yet, the authors and many commentators have assumed that whatever the actual genetic cause was, that it would corroborate a Darwinian narrative. I take issue with this “logic”. It is not scientific but rather represents some kind of propaganda or perhaps only misunderstanding.

The greater point of my OP pertains to putative genetic mechanisms. If Darwin’s ideas were actually correct, would we not expect the Grey (or Gray) Wolf-like ancestor (i.e. Canus Lupus Lupus) of modern dogs (Canus Lupus Familiaris) to have a less-advanced genome? In other words, the Darwinian belief system is built on an obligatory progression from simple-to-complex, over time. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that we should be able to find scientific evidence for this progression in the various genomes. The same should be expected with ancestral bacteria as well.

Another way this can be looked at is that over time, higher levels of structure and function were generated by a process or mechanism(s) by which we should be able to define by more scientific explanations than mere tautologies or circular reasoning or by the word “evolution”, which is so often fraught with unstated assumptions. So, what does the actual evidence show? A little common sense can be applied here: ask yourself these questions:

Which animal is more “genetically diverse”--the Grey Wolf or a Boxer, or Poodle, etc.? Remember that “genetic diversity” is a well know component to health. Are modern dogs more or less healthy than their ancestor? If Darwin’s simple-to-complex progression were true, we would expect dogs to be healthier than their ancestor, yet, the exact opposite appears true. Here is an amazingly-revealing quote from another article:

“While the major challenge is the need to account for genetic diversity that has been lost as a result of full or partial extinctions of original wild lineages,” Source: https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-017-3883-3
The wolf reference genome sequence (Canis lupus lupus) and its implications for Canis spp. population genomics
BMC Genomics201718:495
Shyam Gopalakrishnan, et al

This amazing admission is revealing an underlying principle--that “evolution” proceeds over time, in general, by LOSS of genetic diversity, not by a gain of it. Obviously, we should expect to find corroborating scientific evidence to support this, such as documentation that gene-loss occurs over time, as a general rule, and that epigenetic elements are lost, in general, over time, as “evolution” has progressed. Here is a recent article on bacterial evolution that validates this progression:

Bolotin, Evgeni, and Hershberg, Ruth. 2015. “Gene Loss Dominates As a Source of Genetic Variation within Clonal Pathogenic Bacterial Species”, Genome Biol Evol (2015) 7 (8): 2173-2187. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/gbe/evv135
https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/7/8/2173/557455/Gene-Loss-Dominates-As-a-Source-of-Genetic

Hence, the actual scientific evidence verifies a trend regarding genes and genomes which is opposite to the Darwinian advertisements.

“Many breeds of dog are particularly susceptible to inherited diseases that are also common in humans, such as cancer, heart disease, rheumatoid arthritis, autoimmune disorders, deafness, and blindness.”

But notice… do Grey Wolves suffer from such frequent maladies? Apparently not. Why not? Perhaps the answer lies in understanding the real underlying genetic mechanisms, rather than making Darwinian assumptions. A recent posting of the dog genome lists a total gene content of 36,809. It also lists 5,088 pseudogenes. Much evidence supports the idea that a pseudogene often represents a previously-functional gene which has become mutated, making it non-functional. This is part of the picture of “genetic entropy” which I mentioned earlier. This represents a DOWNHILL mechanism, not an UPHILL one which the meme of Darwinism has been advertising.

Where did the 36 thousand and more functional genes of the canid ancestor come from? Natural selection cannot possibly represent the correct mechanism because NS doesn’t build anything--instead, NS characteristically and predictably REDUCES genes over time. Mutations do the same, in general. So, where is the putative uphill mechanism? If you watch the TV series “Ancient Aliens”, you will notice that they quote numerous scientists who admit that Evolution Theory has completely failed to provide the answer to origins. Hence, they resort to the theory of “seeding”, thanks to benevolent (or perhaps self-serving) aliens from outer space! Nice. Perhaps that’s another meme worthy of a separate thread.

Jacob,

I have no impulse to try to differentiate between so-called macro-evolution versus micro-evolution. These words have become meaningless to me, for the same reason that “evolution” is largely meaningless. Very few authors even attempt to provide an accurate definition and instead, many have promoted the belief that the two are essentially one continuum, differentiated only by time. I suggest that the actual genomic evidence proves otherwise. I would suggest that what we really should be talking about is what I call; “entirely novel gene form acquisition”.

Abundant evidence supports the idea that Natural Selection, or perhaps only environmental pressures acting upon extant genetic diversity and capacity for variation can run downhill quite rapidly, while producing new phenotypes. Yet, this requires the pre-existence of huge quantities of complex, specific and often extremely lengthy gene sequences along with epigenetic components, all working in miraculous harmony, despite the fact that genes and epigenetics operate on entirely different languages, syntaxes and meanings.

Worse yet for the believers in Darwin’s memes is the realization that a third system with its unique language exists in every cell--the histones. One might also argue that mitochondria represent an additional unique system. All of these four systems appear to have existed and been fully functional within the earliest of the plant, animal and fungi which the “fossil record” has given us. Evolution Theory is conspicuously devoid of any explanations for the origins of these systems. I have never even seen a reasonably comprehensive rational hypothetical algorithm presented for any of these things. Instead, I continue to read the appeals to mechanisms which, if one only evaluates them with a modicum of scrutiny, one realizes that they are impotent to explain origins… origins of life as well as the origins of “higher taxa”.

Polyploidy, lateral gene transfers and gene duplications are the usual memes. A little investigation shows these ideas to be highly speculative, at best; without sufficient evidence to explain the sports-team-like enthusiasm within the Darwinist or Neo-Darwinist community. Behe’s book, THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION undergoes a comprehensive historic review of billions of generations of various genomes. His conclusion is that none of the advertised magic contributed much of anything at all. Hence, the explanation for original genomes at so many phylogenetic levels remains completely unexplained. Saying “evolution did it” is a god-of-the-gaps argument, not science. It's a meme only.

"If you watch the TV series “Ancient Aliens”, you will notice that they quote numerous scientists who admit that Evolution Theory has completely failed to provide the answer to origins. Hence, they resort to the theory of “seeding”, thanks to benevolent (or perhaps self-serving) aliens from outer space! Nice. Perhaps that’s another meme worthy of a separate thread."

I think we found the problem. You do realize Ancient Aliens is a dumpster fire and a haven for conspiracy theorists who regularly provide no evidence themselves, right?

" If Darwin’s ideas were actually correct, would we not expect the Grey (or Gray) Wolf-like ancestor (i.e. Canus Lupus Lupus) of modern dogs (Canus Lupus Familiaris) to have a less-advanced genome? In other words, the Darwinian belief system is built on an obligatory progression from simple-to-complex, over time. Hence, it is reasonable to assume that we should be able to find scientific evidence for this progression in the various genomes. The same should be expected with ancestral bacteria as well."

No, we would not expect a less-advanced genome at all. If you are trying to claim there are gaps in Evolution and that Evolution is inconsistent within its own field, you have to understand how Evolution and Genetics works, which is clearly a problem for you. The idea is not how many genes a species has, but how adjusted that species is in tuned to its environment.

Evolution is NOT built on a progression from simple-to-complex. It is not that simple. If you looked at the first bacteria to now, obviously someone who is not educated in Evolution would assume that. But it travels far more than this. The progression came out of an arms race of competition between species and their environments. Some speciation comes with more complex systems to better ascertain their niche, some may not. What do you think vestigial organs are from?

"Which animal is more “genetically diverse”--the Grey Wolf or a Boxer, or Poodle, etc.? Remember that “genetic diversity” is a well know component to health. Are modern dogs more or less healthy than their ancestor? If Darwin’s simple-to-complex progression were true, we would expect dogs to be healthier than their ancestor, yet, the exact opposite appears true. Here is an amazingly-revealing quote from another article:"

I don't know how you're confusing genetic diversity with the layman's term of 'health'. Genetic diversity is an intraspecies concept, how well two individuals may be fertile with each other. The more diverse two individuals are, the better the genes are shuffled and spread to the offspring. If the two individuals are not very diverse, the offspring won't be as viable. But once again, Evolution is not strictly built upon simple-to-complex.

"I have no impulse to try to differentiate between so-called macro-evolution versus micro-evolution. These words have become meaningless to me, for the same reason that “evolution” is largely meaningless. Very few authors even attempt to provide an accurate definition and instead, many have promoted the belief that the two are essentially one continuum, differentiated only by time. I suggest that the actual genomic evidence proves otherwise. I would suggest that what we really should be talking about is what I call; “entirely novel gene form acquisition”"

Provide empirical evidence provided by Ph.D researchers in their field of study and replicated by other Ph.D researchers that genomic evidence proves the definition of Evolution is inconsistent. Because it's actually very concrete to me. It obviously is an umbrella term, because it's a phenomenon that spans over all taxa since the beginning of life itself. Genetics is the molecular evidence of evolution.

"Abundant evidence supports the idea that Natural Selection, or perhaps only environmental pressures acting upon extant genetic diversity and capacity for variation can run downhill quite rapidly, while producing new phenotypes. Yet, this requires the pre-existence of huge quantities of complex, specific and often extremely lengthy gene sequences along with epigenetic components, all working in miraculous harmony, despite the fact that genes and epigenetics operate on entirely different languages, syntaxes and meanings."

(Yet we do have large quantities of complex specific and lengthy gene sequences to provide just the right tools for replication, shuffling, and gene transfer. How magnificent!)

What is your profession that you would claim to know so much about genetics yet actually know zero percent of it?

" Evolution Theory is conspicuously devoid of any explanations for the origins of these systems."

Ah yes, the God of the Gaps fallacy. If you really claimed to have researched, you would find we have a decent working idea for how Endosymbiotic Theory and the process for how protocells came to be.

"Hence, the explanation for original genomes at so many phylogenetic levels remains completely unexplained. Saying “evolution did it” is a god-of-the-gaps argument, not science. It’s a meme only."

Hahahaha sorry no, the God-of-the-Gaps fallacy only applies to supposed "gaps" in evidence, in which case ignorant people would say "then that's where God comes in!" A principle cannot be its own God of the Gaps.

We have 200 years of constantly-building scientific evidence for Evolution and Genetics, and here's the kicker: Theories, Scientific-Principles, these are tested every.single.time. on the spot. And they must work every.single.time. If the theory is wrong one time, it's wrong all the time. And all that time for nearly 200 years we've had the Theory of Evolution, it hasn't been wrong once. How interesting! Especially since this is our job: we scientists strive to prove theories falsifiable. Yet it hasn't happened yet.

Freakenstein,

Thanks for the dialogue. I wonder… did you read the article I posted regarding bacteria evolving via gene loss? Have you read Behe’s book? I cannot understand how you so strongly deny the fact that Darwinism must have an extremely prolific mechanism by which life could progress from simple-to-comples, and then you apparently contradict yourself by saying; “The progression came out of an arms race of competition between species and their environments.”
Ironically, you are making my point that Darwinism is based upon memes, perhaps the most prominent one being a conflation of natural selection with origins. As stated earlier and should be common knowledge of those who study biology and genetics, natural selection only selects from existing genetic choices, IT DOES NOT CREATE THOSE CHOICES.
In fact, the so-called bottleneck phenomenon of population genetics, which is touted by many evolutionists as necessary to produce small isolated populations of distinct creatures that don’t simply meld back into the general population by genetic delusion, etc., is a process of GENE LOSS from a population. This loss includes alleles of genes, at the least, sometimes entire genes, sometimes epigenetic controls of genes and sometimes large blocks of genetic material. It all represents LOSS of the complex specific information that the ancestor (such as the Grey Wolf) possessed. And as the evidence shows, this gene deletion/inactivation can certainly result in amazingly diverse phenotypes (i.e. from Weimaraners to Chihuahuas), yet these creatures affected by selection suffer from many diseases which their ancestors did not have. Why? Because genetic diversity was lost along the way--many functional genes were turned into pseudogenes along the way, and we now realize that many mutated genes become so-called cancer genes.
And by the way, natural selection has no power to remove most of these from the population, since their deadly effect on the individual is often only seen AFTER they have already reproduced! This is why GENETIC ENTROPY is a fact which Darwinists have consistently failed to recon with. It is now well know that for genomes which are about the size of the human one, an average of about 100 new mutations are being passed along to each successive generation. These mutations are largely being accumulated by the population over time, and the results are not good. Disease prevalence is only increasing with time. For the reason mentioned above, natural selection is impotent to remove breast cancers, prostate cancers and a lot of other genetic problems from the human genome, the dog genome or any other.
Now, you said;
“I don’t know how you’re confusing genetic diversity with the layman’s term of ‘health’. Genetic diversity is an intraspecies concept, how well two individuals may be fertile with each other.
Actually, interfertility is the correct term for that last concept you mentioned. And you are incorrect in your restriction of “genetic diversity” to intraspecies. Here is a definition I quickly found on the net:

Genetic diversity. Definition. The variation in the amount of genetic information [i.e. genes and epigenetic elements] within and among individuals of a population, a species, an assemblage, or a community. United Nations (UN) 1992.

You ended by stating this:
If the theory is wrong one time, it’s wrong all the time.

No! You are again missing the point that a huge conflation exists within Darwinism. Just because so-called natural selection is valid does not make naturalistic origins of life or origins of the first ancestors of the major kinds of life a valid idea.
Why don’t you provide this discussion with a reputable source which tells us how, for instance, a prokaryotic cell became a eukaryotic cell? What mechanisms built that cell? Do you realize how complex the differences are between the two types? Do you realize how many entirely novel gene forms would have needed to be acquired at the same time, in order to produce the eukaryote?
Have you ever tried to build a gene yourself? Have you perhaps experimented with the free online “random DNA sequence generator”? And then, have you taken your sequence to the “ORF finder” site to see what you might have gotten? (ORF simply refers to open reading frame, which of course does not contain many of the essential elements for a functional gene.) Have you ever seriously considered how many complex specific elements a gene must have in order to be functional?
Let’s see, it must have the correct sequence which tells the transcription process to begin. And it must later have a different specific sequence to tell the translation process to begin. And somehow, the bulk of the sequence must avoid having the ubiquitous stop codons. Remember that most functional genes are hundreds, if not thousands of nucleotides in length, without the stop codons in the middle. Yet, if you experiment with the random DNA sequence generator, you will see these little devils appear about every 23 codons along the way. But now, many genes have other specific sequences within them to indicate the start and stop of introns/exons. And then, the genes must have specific signals to end the transcription process and also different ending signals to stop the translation process. Where did all these extremely complex and very specific systems come from? Please, don’t insult everyone’s intelligence by saying; “natural selection” or “evolution”.