Give your best "transitional form"

Loudmouth said:

Where does the evidence in that paper support that claim?



If it was already existing information, then why weren't there dominant and recessive traits before that?

Why do you think humans and chimps look different from each other? Do you agree that it is due to the differences in the DNA sequences within their respective genomes?

Click to expand...

Every person born has different dominant and recessive traits. Why all the strawmen Loud? I agree it is the combination of two different genomes with every mating pair in which the chromosomes combine and create something new every time. I agree that mutations can take half of the possibility available and when it doesn't kill the host or do nothing - may on the gazillion occasion, get lucky and get a working combination that happens in the reproductive organs and benefits the current host not at all, but possibly helps the descendant. But why trip on the gazillionth occasion when it happens in the billions when male and female chromosomes combine in a natural sequence that produces variations (if of the same breed) and new breeds (if of different breeds) within the population???

Why pretend it is anything other than what occurs naturally in the natural world? Breed mates with breed producing new breeds - with no evolution and no missing links. Again - Asian mates with African and produces and Afro-Asian - and I need none of your Fairie Dust evolution to bring it about.

Justatruthseeker said:

Every person born has different dominant and recessive traits.

Click to expand...

No, they don't. People can share alleles.

Also, where do you think alleles come from to begin with? They come about through mutations.

People will also be born with mutations, and those mutations will produce a select few alleles that are brand new and have never existed before.

I agree that mutations can take half of the possibility available and when it doesn't kill the host or do nothing - may on the gazillion occasion, get lucky and get a working combination that happens in the reproductive organs and benefits the current host not at all, but possibly helps the descendant.

Click to expand...

Gazillion? Care to show us your math on that one?

By why trip on the gazillionth occasion when it happens in the billions when male and female chromosomes combine in a natural sequence that produces variations (if of the same breed) and new breeds (if of different breeds) within the population???

Click to expand...

Each person is born with about 50 mutations. If functional DNA makes up 10% of the genome, that's 5 new alleles PER PERSON that occurs in DNA that is tied to fitness. In a modest human population of just 10 million, that 50 million important mutations per generation. Over the 5 million years that separates us from our common ancestor shared with chimps, that's 250,000 generations. That's 12 trillion mutations. Why trip over 12 trillion mutations, you ask?

Loudmouth said:

Each person is born with about 50 mutations. If functional DNA makes up 10% of the genome, that's 5 new alleles PER PERSON that occurs in DNA that is tied to fitness. In a modest human population of just 10 million, that 50 million important mutations per generation. Over the 5 million years that separates us from our common ancestor shared with chimps, that's 250,000 generations. That's 12 trillion mutations. Why trip over 12 trillion mutations, you ask?

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Mutagenic studies with plants suggest that about 0.5% to about 1% of expressed mutations are beneficial. If the estimate of 5 new alleles per person is correct and these are functional, then about one in 40 to one in 20 people will have a beneficial mutation. The numbers this estimate is based upon may not be correct (e.g. proportion of beneficial mutations may not be the same as plants). But, I would think it a fairly safe bet that if you're at the superbowl, that someone in the crowd has a beneficial mutation.

If the estimate of the ratio of beneficial mutations is correct, then there will have been 5,000,000,000-10,000,000,000 beneficial mutations since our common ancestor with chimps. That's a lot. Natural selection will not have fixed all of these in the human population, but there is a lot of beneficial genetic novelty for it to filter.

Examples of known beneficial mutations include lactose persistance, bacterial drug resistance (beneficial for the bacteria) and Apolipoprotein AI-Milano.

Loudmouth said:

No, they don't. People can share alleles.

Click to expand...

And have so many unique ones you can't number them - that's why every person is different - even identicle twins are not truly identical - just similar.

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=244

"Identical do have the same genotype. After all, they come from the same fertilized egg. Recent studies have shown that identical twins have very "similar" not "identical" DNA, but for the most part, according to basic biology it is identical. Identical twins aren't completely identical because DNA is essentially like instructions to building something, how your body decides to build that is random. This is why identical twins can have differing fingerprints."

Also, where do you think alleles come from to begin with? They come about through mutations.

Click to expand...

No they don't - an allele first must exist to be mutated.

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

They are a natural part of the genome - and again - do what you claim of mutations billions of times at every conception.

People will also be born with mutations, and those mutations will produce a select few alleles that are brand new and have never existed before.

Click to expand...

Yes, people will be born with mutations - we agree. Some mistakes make it through the DNA repair mechanism.

You just like to call it something else then - so it's not associated as the mutation and the result thereof that it is.

Gazillion? Care to show us your math on that one?

Click to expand...

Care to show me your math that shows the viability of life forming from non-life?

I mean we already know how rare beneficial mutations are - while you see beneficial changes occurring in the billions naturally with every conception. Those you ignore though, don't you, even if it's the only cause of a variation you have ever seen with a new birth - besides those accidental deformities you don't like to hear about linked to above - in case you didn't bother to check it out, I mean, ummm, missed it.

Each person is born with about 50 mutations. If functional DNA makes up 10% of the genome, that's 5 new alleles PER PERSON that occurs in DNA that is tied to fitness. In a modest human population of just 10 million, that 50 million important mutations per generation. Over the 5 million years that separates us from our common ancestor shared with chimps, that's 250,000 generations. That's 12 trillion mutations. Why trip over 12 trillion mutations, you ask?

Click to expand...

No they ain't - you all just like to call every single change that occurs a mutation - even if the genome rewrites itself brand new with every single conception.

"Identical twins aren't completely identical because DNA is essentially like instructions to building something, how your body decides to build that is random."

Although they do have one included error - there is nothing random about it - it's following that blueprint to the letter. But yes sometimes mutations - I mean deformities - do occur, no one is denying this Loud. Just what you think they actually do is all.

Justatruthseeker said:

And have so many unique ones you can't number them - that's why every person is different - even identicle twins are not truly identical - just similar.

Click to expand...

I guess you didn't read my previous post.

Each person is born with about 50 mutations. If functional DNA makes up 10% of the genome, that's 5 new alleles PER PERSON that occurs in DNA that is tied to fitness.

Also, you apparently didn't read your own source.

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=244

"Identical do have the same genotype.

Click to expand...

They have the same genotype. At the DNA level, they are identical.

No they don't - an allele first must exist to be mutated.

Click to expand...

The mutated allele is a new allele. That new allele didn't exist in the previous generation.

You just like to call it something else then - so it's not associated as the mutation and the result thereof that it is.

Click to expand...

That's because it is something else. Mutations can and do cause genes to act differently. Chimps and humans are different from each other because of the mutations that separate them.

Care to show me your math that shows the viability of life forming from non-life?

Click to expand...

Red herring. Trying to change the subject is not an honest way to address a question.

I mean we already know how rare beneficial mutations are

Click to expand...

We do? Please, show us references detailing how rare they are.

- while you see beneficial changes occurring in the billions naturally with every conception. Those you ignore though, don't you, even if it's the only cause of a variation you have ever seen with a new birth - besides those accidental deformities you don't like to hear about linked to above - in case you didn't bother to check it out, I mean, ummm, missed it.

Click to expand...

I guess you have never heard of negative selection? Those mutations are removed from the population through natural selection.

No they ain't - you all just like to call every single change that occurs a mutation - even if the genome rewrites itself brand new with every single conception.

Click to expand...

Huh?

"Identical twins aren't completely identical because DNA is essentially like instructions to building something, how your body decides to build that is random."

Although they do have one included error - there is nothing random about it - it's following that blueprint to the letter. But yes sometimes mutations - I mean deformities - do occur, no one is denying this Loud. Just what you think they actually do is all.

Click to expand...

Why do you think chimps and humans look different? Isn't it because their DNA is different?

AnotherAtheist said:

Agreed.

Mutagenic studies with plants suggest that about 0.5% to about 1% of expressed mutations are beneficial. If the estimate of 5 new alleles per person is correct and these are functional, then about one in 40 to one in 20 people will have a beneficial mutation. The numbers this estimate is based upon may not be correct (e.g. proportion of beneficial mutations may not be the same as plants). But, I would think it a fairly safe bet that if you're at the superbowl, that someone in the crowd has a beneficial mutation.

If the estimate of the ratio of beneficial mutations is correct, then there will have been 5,000,000,000-10,000,000,000 beneficial mutations since our common ancestor with chimps. That's a lot. Natural selection will not have fixed all of these in the human population, but there is a lot of beneficial genetic novelty for it to filter.

Examples of known beneficial mutations include lactose persistance, bacterial drug resistance (beneficial for the bacteria) and Apolipoprotein AI-Milano.

Click to expand...

50 mutations per person, 1 million population, and 250,000 generations. That adds up to 12.5 trillion mutations that have occurred in the human lineage since diverging from chimps. Chimps and humans are separated by 20 million mutations in each lineage. That means that only .0003% of the mutations were kept. Of those, about 80% were probably neutral. As anyone can see, the rate of beneficial mutations doesn't have to be that high in order to produce the differences we see between species.

Every single fossil is transitional between what came before and what came after.

1) Any permanent change in the genome is incorrectly called a mutation.

2) Billions of these occur naturally with every single conception that occurs. Each new life is written into a double-helix from two separate chromosomes. Each one is a complete and permanent change in the genome.

3) Of those 50 mutations per person - none of them are, just mistaken as. They are natural changes as new dominant and recessive genes are written.

4) A mutation is in actuality any change that occurs in a gene after it is complete. Until a baby is born - it's code is still being written - it is still undergoing the natural process. It is born with no mutations - none at all, besides the errors that were overlooked during the transcription phase.

http://jonlieffmd.com/blog/dna-proo...plication-cellullar-self-directed-engineering

5) Mutations are damage to a genome.

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

"Mutations result from damage to DNA which is not repaired or to RNA genomes (typically caused by radiation or chemical mutagens), errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements."

6) Only mutations which occur in the reproductive genes - if they make it past the repair mechanisms and do not kill the host or make it sterile - will ever get passed on to the next generation. A mutation which occurs in the genes which control the eye of the mother - will never be passed on to the next generation. Only any mutations which might accidentally occur in the genes which produce the eggs can ever be passed down. The mother never benefits from mutations passed to her offspring - and the offspring never benefit from any the mother undergoes that are not in the genes associated with reproduction.

Justatruthseeker said:

1) Any permanent change in the genome is incorrectly called a mutation.

Click to expand...

"the changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form that may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes."
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=mutation+definition

2) Billions of these occur naturally with every single conception that occurs.

Click to expand...

False. 35 to 50 occur per individual.

Each new life is written into a double-helix from two separate chromosomes. Each one is a complete and permanent change in the genome.

Click to expand...

That doesn't make much sense.

3) Of those 50 mutations per person - none of them are, just mistaken as. They are natural changes as new dominant and recessive genes are written.

Click to expand...

New dominant and recessive alleles are new DNA sequences that are created by muations.

4) A mutation is in actuality any change that occurs in a gene after it is complete. Until a baby is born - it's code is still being written - it is still undergoing the natural process. It is born with no mutations - none at all, besides the errors that were overlooked during the transcription phase.

Click to expand...

The genome is complete the moment of conception.

It's as if you put in extra effort just to be wrong.

5) Mutations are damage to a genome.

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

Click to expand...

No more so than raindrops are damage to the ground. Mutations are just what happens.

6) Only mutations which occur in the reproductive genes -

Click to expand...

Mutations that happen anywhere in the genome can be passed on.

LoricaLady said:

One transitional form. Name it. .

Click to expand...

I give you two!

hippocentaur


Unicorn:


Never met a creationist which has not accepted these hard evidence as true transitional forms. So you see Evolution is true after all. Like we always said, we got the fossils, we win! You cant argue against data like this.

CabVet said:

Every single fossil is transitional between what came before and what came after.

Click to expand...

Easy to debunk! There is no fossils.

Loudmouth said:

That doesn't make much sense.

Click to expand...

I don't believe you. You can't possible have been reading all the previous points first and then suddenly at the third point come to this conclusion, unless you was crying with laughter until you got stomach pain here.

46AND2 said:

I don't particularly like this example. Cecal valves have been observed in other lizards, indicating that this is just the expression of a previously recessed gene. Certainly, it had to evolve at some point, but I don't buy that this is rapid, novel evolution in action.

Click to expand...

My understanding is while the valves are present in other lizards none are in the ancestral species or in the DNA least what I've heard.

LoricaLady said:

I have never seen a so called "transitional form" which all evolutionists agree on.

Click to expand...

I nominate my father. He is transition between me and my grandpa.

I do understand that this is the kind of transitions asked for to validate the claim vertebrates came from fishes. Unfortunately not every single individual that is born is preserved as a fossil, so you will have to do with a few gaps here and there.


Btw, this is the current scientific understanding of how dinosaurs used to looked like:



Today they look more like this:

Justatruthseeker said:

Every person born has different dominant and recessive traits. Why all the strawmen Loud? I agree it is the combination of two different genomes with every mating pair in which the chromosomes combine and create something new every time. I agree that mutations can take half of the possibility available and when it doesn't kill the host or do nothing - may on the gazillion occasion, get lucky and get a working combination that happens in the reproductive organs and benefits the current host not at all, but possibly helps the descendant. But why trip on the gazillionth occasion when it happens in the billions when male and female chromosomes combine in a natural sequence that produces variations (if of the same breed) and new breeds (if of different breeds) within the population???

Why pretend it is anything other than what occurs naturally in the natural world? Breed mates with breed producing new breeds - with no evolution and no missing links. Again - Asian mates with African and produces and Afro-Asian - and I need none of your Fairie Dust evolution to bring it about.

Click to expand...

zinjanthropus boisei as a matter of fact, it's clearly a transitional but the question is, from what to what.

Tiktaalik is an interesting one.

LoricaLady said:

I have never seen a so called "transitional form" which all evolutionists agree on. I have never seen one that isn't based on logical fallacies, assumptions presented as gawd's truth scientific fact, magical thinking where people act like they know what happened in the invisible and untestable past, and convoluted sophistry.

Brush up on your logical fallacies if you don't know what they are because you will be challenged on them. Science has to be logical. Evolution is not, which is why it is pseudo science.

Sure hope you don't play verbal dodge ball. I like to use the Socratic Method and ask Qs, purely science & logic based Qs with no reference whatsoever to the Bible, and see if evol. fans can answer them to support their faith with actual data. After exchanges with several hundred evolution devotes on Youtube, I can say that heck, they don't even try to answer the Qs, truth to tell. All they give are excusesfor why they can't answer them! But maybe you'll be different and show us all the light.

One transitional form. Name it. And don't evade those Qs now.

Click to expand...

Because none exist. They are simply incorrect classifications.

All one needs do is look at the world around them. In every single species many infraspecific taxa exist. Asian, African, Latino for example. Husky, Mastiff, Poodle for example. Red tailed deer, white tailed deer, mule deer for example. Brown bear, black bear, grizzly bear for example. We could do this for every single species that exists.

Now look at the fossil record. Not one single infraspecific taxa in the species exists. This is because they have incorrectly labeled them as seperate species, leading to their false belief that one species becomes another.

It would be no different than if we incorrectly labeled an Asian as a seperate species from the African. We of course would then come to the wrong conclusion about the Afro-Asian. Or if we incorrectly labeled the Husky as a seperate species from the Mastiff, we would naturally come to the wrong conclusion about the Chinook.

The fact that the fossil record has been incorrectly labeled is supported by an entire living world of data, but of course the real world is ignored in favor of fantasy, because the fantasy supports their beliefs.

In situ said:

I nominate my father. He is transition between me and my grandpa.

I do understand that this is the kind of transitions asked for to validate the claim vertebrates came from fishes. Unfortunately not every single individual that is born is preserved as a fossil, so you will have to do with a few gaps here and there.


Btw, this is the current scientific understanding of how dinosaurs used to looked like:

View attachment 184153

Today they look more like this:

View attachment 184154

Click to expand...

A few gaps? The transitional should outnumber the set forms. Not the least we haven't even began to debate what correctly labeling the infraspecific taxa in the fossil record (see above post) would do to those gaps. It would change them from gaps to insurmountable chasms....

Justatruthseeker said:

Because none exist. They are simply incorrect classifications.

All one needs do is look at the world around them. In every single species many infraspecific taxa exist. Asian, African, Latino for example. Husky, Mastiff, Poodle for example. Red tailed deer, white tailed deer, mule deer for example. Brown bear, black bear, grizzly bear for example. We could do this for every single species that exists.

Now look at the fossil record. Not one single infraspecific taxa in the species exists. This is because they have incorrectly labeled them as seperate species, leading to their false belief that one species becomes another.

It would be no different than if we incorrectly labeled an Asian as a seperate species from the African. We of course would then come to the wrong conclusion about the Afro-Asian. Or if we incorrectly labeled the Husky as a seperate species from the Mastiff, we would naturally come to the wrong conclusion about the Chinook.

The fact that the fossil record has been incorrectly labeled is supported by an entire living world of data, but of course the real world is ignored in favor of fantasy, because the fantasy supports their beliefs.

Click to expand...

Wait, where do you think poodles and mastiffs came from? Not some kind of common ancestor? Are there not transitional forms between a wolf and a pug? Yes, they are still dogs, but doesn't it help illustrate that evolution suggests every single fossil is transitional?

I think something is being missed here. A transition between, for example, a cow and a giraffe, exists. Exactly one exists, and that is the shared common ancestor. There are fossils that show the development of one lineage over time to look more like giraffes and there are fossils of the other developing over time to look like cattle. There are no fossils, except for that common ancestor, that sort of resemble both. And that common ancestor probably has a few traits that neither have, because those traits were bred out of both lineages. Heck, there could even be a trait or two that it lacks but that both lineages developed independently, though it would almost certainly be coded differently in their DNA.