Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
But that is not what happens, stevevw. Any evidence that is against or for evolution is evaluated by scientists. As in the paper you have cited!
That is not what is in that paper, stevevw.
Why is that
The point is the codes are pretty similar to modern ones. That means there was little evolution between those times. It can also mean that those complex codes were around early and have remained pretty much the same and if anything have become less complex and less fit.
I thought the first life according to evolution was simple singled celled life and then it became more complex in multi celled life. That then became more complex as time went on from simple sea life to land animals which required larger brains. But the claim about life becoming more fit is under question as well as it seems the opposite has happen.
The new articles I included stated that the bacteria was similar in its DNA as well.
Except in evolutionary terms the Cambrian explosion was sudden. Most of the complex body plans we see today appeared suddenly without much trace of where they came from. If you want to use the fossil record for evidence here is an example of how the gradual transitions as missing in a big way. Not just before the Cambrian period but also after wards. there are many examples of the sudden appearance of complex forms without any trace of transitionals leading up to them or continuing after them.
So what are you saying here. How do you tell a species of bacteria and especially how do you tell it evolved through darwinian evolution when it has a tremendous ability to gain genetic material through HGT that doesn't require evolution through random mutations and natural selection.[/quote]
We know.
Not according to some scientists. Genetic drift would not guarantee that and it is more likely to encourage negative mutations. According to evolution its capable of almost anything. Thats where is begin to think that it is trying to account for what the evidence is really showing which is design and capabilities that are beyond what evolution can explain. So they have to start finding ways of accommodating what we see in life with new claims about what evolution can do. They are almost saying that evolution is God and capable of creating everything. Put it this way if God is the creator of life then evolution would have to account for things that are beyond its ability. An indication of this would be many claims that dont have support or explanations as to how it would be possible.
It seems that when we find contradictions for evolution there is always a reason ie convergent evolution, ghost lineages, punctuated evolution, or conservation evolution over millions and millions of years. Its still evolution when its not evolution and its evolution no matter what the contradictions are. But if evolution is to be able to evolve all the complex variation that has ever existed and what we see today then it would sure need to be working at it most of the time to be able to achieve those levels.
I have shown this in previous posts which I am sure you reviewed.
This is a good example of the circular reasoning and assumption of those who support evolution. To say that single celled life could have become more complex doesn't mean anything. You need to explain how that is possible and show evidence for it. To assume it happens because you take something like a perceived benefit from natural selection and extend that to being able to create anything is a mighty big jump. To say that because we have complex life now proves evolution because it started from simple life is circular reasoning based on assumption.
You were saying that evolution doesn't evolve from simple to complex. I was showing that evolution claims that life started with simple single celled life and then to multi celled life which included the evolution things like brains. One of the basic tenets of evolution is the gradual accumulation of more complex life through small step by step evolution. So every organ such as brains, hearts or eyes and systems such as nervous and respiratory systems was evolved from simple prototypes of what we have today. The eye for example started as a simple patch of skin according to evolution and gradually evolved bit by bit into more complex eyes. This is how evolution claims life could evolve otherwise they would have to account for how it could mutate complete brains, eyes and other body structures in one go. So evolution is largely based on the evolution of simple forms into complex ones.
So why do they use antibiotic resistance as an example of how evolution evolved a new function by stating that the use of antibiotics wasn't introduced until the 1900s just like they do with nylon digesting bacteria.
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
I'm not aware of anyone who has claimed that penicillium mold did not produce penicillin prior to their discovery.
Antibiotic resistance is a useful example of evolution for public understanding because it's current, it's important, and it needs urgent attention.
You've misunderstood. Evolution doesn't necessarily go from simple to complex (the vast bulk of biomass on the planet is unicellular). In the early days when there were only the very simplest life forms, greater complexity was the only route to go - becoming simpler was not an option. Once a greater range of complexity was established, it could go either way depending on the selection pressures. But, in general, there's an inverse correlation between numbers and complexity.
No; evolution is based on heritable variation, selection, and reproduction. The development of complexity is a consequence of that. Complexity will arise if and only if it leads to success in the environment in question. But it's fairly obvious that, given a distribution of complexity, and all else being equal, in any given population evolution can result in reduced complexity, no change in complexity, or an increase of complexity. Therefore, over time and across multiple populations, we should expect to see an increase in maximum complexity (though the rate of change will reduce once diminishing returns set in). In practice, rapid environmental change favours the persistence of simple organisms with shorter life-cycles, and the most adaptable complex organisms (evolution generally follows adaptation).
So if bacteria had the ability to resist natural antibiotics then they would have had the basic genetic info to draw upon or modify to resist man made artificial antibiotics. So the ability wasn't evolved as a new function or the creation of new info. That was my point that the example of using antibiotic resistance to prove evolution is not a good one.
So what was the selection pressure on the single celled life, a big scary bacteria or something, lol. I dont think evolution can even attempt to explain how a single celled organism could evolve into complex multi celled life. The amount of steps needed that require multiple components to happen at the same time is beyond evolution. Unless the required ability and info was there to begin with a random and blind process could find the right paths in billions of years.
As far as I understand from the papers I have posted adaptation is least likely to be responsible for variation and complexity. It is the non adaptive forces that are more likely to explain and cause life to change and vary.
It is more to do with man made antibiotics and how bacteria has adapted to resist that. But I think because bacteria was already able to resist natural antibiotics that the ability to resist artificial ones would be based on some similar genetic ability. I dont think antibiotic resistance to man made antibiotic was entirely a new function for bacteria that was created in the 19th century.
It's not that simple. Both natural and artificial antibiotics come in many different types and act in different ways. Some bacteria do have dormant genetic sequences for resistance to antibiotics they were once threatened by, and can reactivate them when the same threat returns - either by a genetic or epigenetic switch, or by mutation in the case of inactivation by genetic drift. But many synthetic antibiotics act in entirely new ways, and some bacteria do not appear to have used dormant mechanisms to resist unfamiliar natural antibiotics, and we've seen the evolution of resistance to them from scratch. When you can sequence the genome of both resistant and unresistant strains, it's possible to see what has changed.
Seriously? selection pressure is anything that threatens the production of viable offspring. Other creatures are only a small part of it.
You could start by learning about the topic. Try Microbial Cooperation, and How Single-cell Organisms Evolved into Multicellular Ones.
The argument from incredulity is also an argument from ignorance - both are fallacious.
Evolution doesn't do what's logical, just what works at the time.
A mutation isn't a threat to keeping things the same, it changes things by definition. However, most mutations are neutral and a deleterious mutation quickly drops out of the gene pool, so it's not a threat to the population. Remember it's populations that evolve, not individuals.
Lol, you could look at it that way if you like, but look around you - do you see any multicellular organisms? it's over half a billion years since they first appeared, so they're doing OK for a 'downgrade'
I think you may have failed to grasp what fitness means [hint - it doesn't mean having more offspring or a larger population]What, exactly do you mean by that? can you give some examples? citation? explanation in your own words?
Adaptation has two meanings in this context; the ability of an individual organism to cope with changes to its environment, i.e. to adapt; and traits that have evolved in a population as a result of changes to the environment. For the former, you would expect an individual's ability to change to be limited, and for it to be unable to change in complexity. The latter are examples of variation and often complexity. Posting papers and understanding them are not the same thing.
What do you mean by 'non-adaptive forces'?
