The evidence for Evolution.

[Kylie]

We share 97% of genes with mice, more than with apes, don't see you claiming them as a common ancestor.

Humans and other modern apes do have a common ancestor. For example, the common ancestor of humans and chimps/bonobos lived about 6 million years ago. It was at this time that the population split into two groups (probably due to some geographical isolation) and one group evolved into modern chimps and bonobos, while the other group evolved into modern Humans.

Likewise, there is a common ancestor between Humans and mice, it just lived a lot further back.

But if you understood that everything is made up of the same protons, neutrons and electrons, it would be no surprise to you that we could find similarities with all life on this planet. Since apes and mice were created from the same molecules, why wouldn't they share common DNA?

Of course, since Gold and chlorine share so many similarities, as they are both made up of electrons, protons and neutrons. Why, just the other day, my husband gave me a lovely pair of chlorine earrings.

You are under the false assumption creation demands everything be unique, when all were created from the same dust.

Do you know what a codon is? It's a segment of DNA made up of three nucleotides. You know how DNA is always represented with letters? Yeah, three of those, like AGT or CTG. Each codon produces an amino acid. For example, the codon CCT produces the amino acid Proline. Since there are four options for each nucleotide (A, C, G or T) and three places in each codon, there are 64 possible combinations.

However, there are only 20 different amino acids that are produced. So we see that sometimes the same amino acid can be produced by different codes. For example, Lysine is produced by the code AAG, but it is also produced by AAA. From an organism's point of view, either one would work just as well. But when we look at closely related animals, we see that the genes for their amino acids are similar.

Another example, from the evolution 101 podcast:

Cytochrome C is a ubiquitous gene that is found in all organisms, including animals, plants, and bacteria. It’s an essential gene for cellular metabolism, and helps to provide energy for all life processes. Cytochrome C fulfills the prediction of ubiquitous proteins- that is, it is extremely functionally redundant. Many different amino acid sequences have been shown to fold up into the basic structure required for Cytochrome C function, and in fact among bacterial strains, completely different amino acid sequences are redundantly functional. Experiments in yeast show that if you remove the yeast’s own Cytochrome C protein, you can replace it with Cytochrome C from humans, rats, pigeons, or even fruit flies, and it works fine. A study was published that shows there are, in fact, over 10^93 different possible amino acid sequences for Cytochrome C. That’s more possible sequences then there are atoms in the Universe. So, Cytochrome C is very functionally redundant, and it would be possible for every single different organism to have a completely different amino acid sequence, if evolution is not true.

So what do the sequence comparisons show? Let’s compare humans and chimpanzees. If evolution is true, then chimpanzees are our closest relative, but if evolution is not true, we’re no more related to chimps then we are to crickets. But if you compare the amino acid sequence of humans and chimpanzees, you see that they are exactly the same. Exactly the same. And when you compare human Cytochrome C to that of other mammals, you find that there is only about 10 amino acids difference between them. The chance of this happening without shared heredity is about 1 in 10^29. If you compare human Cytochrome C with the organism the least related to us, outside of bacteria, you find that there’s only about 51 amino acids difference between us. The chance of this happening without shared heredity is about 1 in 10^25.

Plus we won't get into the fact that those shared sites you toute as proof come from virus insertions.

I'm sorry, which were those? When did I mention shared sites?

 

[AV1611VET]

Did the person include fossil snowmen?

Them melted.

 

[Kylie]

Them melted.

Then it's not a valid analogy, because we still have fossils of earlier species, unlike your old snowmen.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Humans and other modern apes do have a common ancestor. For example, the common ancestor of humans and chimps/bonobos lived about 6 million years ago. It was at this time that the population split into two groups (probably due to some geographical isolation) and one group evolved into modern chimps and bonobos, while the other group evolved into modern Humans.

What common ancestor was that? The one we have no evidence of and are to just use our imagination? Is this the part where we start incorrectly classifying infraspecific taxa as seperate species?

Likewise, there is a common ancestor between Humans and mice, it just lived a lot further back.

If you say so. Is this another imaginary ancestor?

Of course, since Gold and chlorine share so many similarities, as they are both made up of electrons, protons and neutrons. Why, just the other day, my husband gave me a lovely pair of chlorine earrings.

But are you claiming gold evolved from chlorine or vice versa? Or do you just accept that both exist separately but share similarities?

Ahhh, so you do understand the truth, you just fail to follow what you know to be true.

Do you know what a codon is? It's a segment of DNA made up of three nucleotides. You know how DNA is always represented with letters? Yeah, three of those, like AGT or CTG. Each codon produces an amino acid. For example, the codon CCT produces the amino acid Proline. Since there are four options for each nucleotide (A, C, G or T) and three places in each codon, there are 64 possible combinations.

Presupposing that AGT and C already exist of course even if you are supposed to be starting with simple life where all of those combinations are not possible because all the letters do not exist.

But however I don't have that problem since all combinations were possible to begin with.

However, there are only 20 different amino acids that are produced. So we see that sometimes the same amino acid can be produced by different codes. For example, Lysine is produced by the code AAG, but it is also produced by AAA. From an organism's point of view, either one would work just as well. But when we look at closely related animals, we see that the genes for their amino acids are similar.

Of course they are, just as a designer designs all cars similar. Just as chlorine and gold share similarities yet one does not require the pre-existence of the other.

Your spot on in your reasoning of gold and chlorine, now accept the truth. That gold does not come from chlorine nor does it require chlorine to exist for it to exist. Yet each share similarities you understand have nothing to do with one forming the other. Now apply this truth to the rest of creation.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Them melted.

Common ancestors have a way of melting into non existence.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Then it's not a valid analogy, because we still have fossils of earlier species, unlike your old snowmen.

Then you won't mind showing me the fossils of the common ancestor that split to become both human and ape?

Or did that melt too?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Except that it is.
Every newborn comes with a set of mutations and their offspring inherits those and subsequently adds their own. Migration patterns continue. Adaptions to environments happen all the time. The fittest have the most chance of survival and reproduction.

Except regardless of how many mutations that newborn has, if the parents are say Asian it remains Asian. Only when the Asian mates with say an African, do you observe variation within the species when an Afro-Asian is born.

So you'll have to excuse me when I say I don't need mutations to create variation in the species, while your mutation does nothing except vary within the infraspecific taxa. And variations which change not the infraspecific taxa at all, for it still remains the same infraspecific taxa it always was.

Well, yes... rabbits are rabbits are rabbits. And descendents of rabbits will remain rabbits or sub-species of rabbits.

At least you have this correct.

Distant ancestors of rabbits however, weren't rabbits.
But they were mammals.
Distant ancestors of mammals weren't mammals. But they were vertebrates.

No, ancestors of rabbits were rabbits, the descendants living today you may however classify as a subspecies or different infraspecific taxa if you like. You recognized the truth above, then do a complete 180.

We don't actuall need the fossil record. Our collective DNA is more then enough to demonstrate common ancestry.

No, it simply demonstrates that One Designer created them both. Your fellow evolutionist recognizes the truth, but probably won't follow through with it. Just as chlorine and gold share similarities yet one does not come from the other. I am sure you recognize this truth as well, but will likewise fail to follow through with it in your reasonings.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How big would it need to be to have a different tread pattern on every tire?

You have different tread patterns. Asian, African, Latino..... Husky, Mastiff, Poodle......

 

[Speedwell]

I am sure you recognize this truth as well, but will likewise fail to follow through with it in your reasonings.

And what do you suppose "the truth" to be in this case?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, they're not like dogs, they're at the boundary of speciation.

No, they are simply different infraspecific taxa just like dogs are. No boundary ever occurred as they have been interbreeding from the start and were never reproductively isolated.

Arbitrary in closely related populations. There is no single unambiguous definition.

What is ambiguous about birds mating and producing fertile offspring right in front of their eyes?....

Not my classification. As I said, evolutionary biologists are split on whether to consider them species or not - but it doesn't matter.

What's to consider? Even the DNA showed there was nothing unique that set them apart.

It does matter, because if they are the same species then they are merely infraspecific taxa in that species and no evolution is occurring.

Clearly not. It's ambiguous in edge cases, but adequate to distinguish and identify the vast majority.

Yet you seem to need someone else to tell you that those birds mating and producing fertile offspring right in front of their eyes are the same species or seperate species. It is quite adequate in this case, so accept what you know to be adequate.

That would be incorrect, because the populations are clearly evolving and are different.

Yet the DNA date was unable to distinguish anything remarkable between them that would set them apart as separate species. They are no more different than an Asian is from an African. No more different than a Husky is from a Mastiff. Even less, as the DNA data could distinguish nothing unique.

Not so.

Since that seems an adequate response to you then my response would be: is so.

 

[Kylie]

What common ancestor was that? The one we have no evidence of and are to just use our imagination? Is this the part where we start incorrectly classifying infraspecific taxa as seperate species?

No evidence? Are you just deciding to completely ignore the huge amount of DNA evidence?

If you say so. Is this another imaginary ancestor?

Again, you are ignorant of the huge amount of DNA evidence.

But are you claiming gold evolved from chlorine or vice versa? Or do you just accept that both exist separately but share similarities?

I'm sorry, are you saying that evolution is a required part of your analogy? Because I thought you were against the idea of evolution.

Ahhh, so you do understand the truth, you just fail to follow what you know to be true.

I understand what evolution actually is, not the strawman version you insist on using.

Presupposing that AGT and C already exist of course even if you are supposed to be starting with simple life where all of those combinations are not possible because all the letters do not exist.

Wow, this is basic genetics. How can you think you can argue against evolution when you know nothing about it?

That's like if I tried to argue against Andrew Wilies' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem while being unclear on what addition was.

Of course they are, just as a designer designs all cars similar. Just as chlorine and gold share similarities yet one does not require the pre-existence of the other.

Your spot on in your reasoning of gold and chlorine, now accept the truth. That gold does not come from chlorine nor does it require chlorine to exist for it to exist. Yet each share similarities you understand have nothing to do with one forming the other. Now apply this truth to the rest of creation.

Wow. You total ignorance of this topic is astounding. Would you like me to put some uranium on your food instead of sodium chloride? Heck, even small changfes have huge effects. H2O is plain water, but H2O2 will kill you. And yet it's just one extra oxygen atom in each molecule.

But no, they're so similar...

 

[Kylie]

Then you won't mind showing me the fossils of the common ancestor that split to become both human and ape?

Or did that melt too?

Try educating yourself on how this actually works. You are demanding an unrealistic level of accuracy. We can't point to a particular species and say for sure that it is a common ancestor.

 

[Kylie]

Except regardless of how many mutations that newborn has, if the parents are say Asian it remains Asian. Only when the Asian mates with say an African, do you observe variation within the species when an Afro-Asian is born.

Because evolution happens within a single generation, of course.

So you'll have to excuse me when I say I don't need mutations to create variation in the species, while your mutation does nothing except vary within the infraspecific taxa. And variations which change not the infraspecific taxa at all, for it still remains the same infraspecific taxa it always was.

It's lots of small mutations that add up over many generations to create a large change.

At least you have this correct.

And all descendants of mammals will be mammals, all descendants of chordates will be chordates...

No, ancestors of rabbits were rabbits, the descendants living today you may however classify as a subspecies or different infraspecific taxa if you like. You recognized the truth above, then do a complete 180.

No, you only think that because you don't understand how evolution works.

No, it simply demonstrates that One Designer created them both. Your fellow evolutionist recognizes the truth, but probably won't follow through with it. Just as chlorine and gold share similarities yet one does not come from the other. I am sure you recognize this truth as well, but will likewise fail to follow through with it in your reasonings.

And for some reason he chose to include things which really look like they are the result of evolution...

How very curious.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What common ancestor was that? The one we have no evidence of and are to just use our imagination?

The one that is infered from our collective genome.
In exactly the same way, we are able to determine that 2 orphans are siblings while the parents are unknown to all.

We don't need the common ancestor to be present, in order to be able to infer its existance.

Genetics is kinda cool that way.

Is this the part where we start incorrectly classifying infraspecific taxa as seperate species?

No. It's the part where we get our heads out of the sand and realise that genetics allows us to determine relatedness among individuals and populations as well as determine common ancestry, and even provide estimates about how long ago that ancestor lived.

If you say so. Is this another imaginary ancestor?

No. It's yet another common ancestor that is demonstrated through our collective DNA.

But are you claiming gold evolved from chlorine or vice versa? Or do you just accept that both exist separately but share similarities?

First and foremost, he's being sarcastic and is showing you how ridiculous your argument was.

Ahhh, so you do understand the truth, you just fail to follow what you know to be true.

No. See above. Apparantly you're so far gone, that you didn't even recognise the obvious sarcasm.

Presupposing that AGT and C already exist of course even if you are supposed to be starting with simple life where all of those combinations are not possible because all the letters do not exist.

But however I don't have that problem since all combinations were possible to begin with.

The origins of life is out of scope for evolution theory.
I'm sure you've been told that before.

Of course they are, just as a designer designs all cars similar.

Not a single human made product line anywhere on this planet, is build in a nested hierarchical structure.

As you have been told so many times before as well, it's not the mere similarity that needs to be addressed in biology. It's the pattern of similarities.

Cars do not fall into a nested hierarchy. Not even if you limit yourself to a single model of a single brand of a single factory.

Actual designers don't design their products that way, because it is terribly inefficient.
When the products are a result of a process like evolution however, then such a pattern is inevitable. More then that even... not only is it inevitable, it is required that the "products" fall into such hierarchy. If they do not, and a single exception is already enough, then that means that the evolutionary process did not happen and the products came about through some other mechanism.

Just as chlorine and gold share similarities yet one does not require the pre-existence of the other.

Still into making those ridiculous statements that only expose your total lack of understanding of biological systems, I see...

Your spot on in your reasoning of gold and chlorine, now accept the truth. That gold does not come from chlorine nor does it require chlorine to exist for it to exist.

Delicious how you still don't seem to have figured out that he was making fun of you.

Yet each share similarities you understand have nothing to do with one forming the other. Now apply this truth to the rest of creation.

It is completely irrelevant to the development of biological systems.

 

[Kylie]

Delicious how you still don't seem to have figured out that he was making fun of you.

She...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then you won't mind showing me the fossils of the common ancestor that split to become both human and ape?

Or did that melt too?

You really need to get it into your head that it's one thing to infer common ancestry of 2 species based on genetics and comparative anatomy on the one hand, and actually finding, as well as identifying, fossils of that ancestral species on the other.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You have different tread patterns. Asian, African, Latino..... Husky, Mastiff, Poodle......

In biological terms, those would be all variations of the same tread.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Except regardless of how many mutations that newborn has, if the parents are say Asian it remains Asian. Only when the Asian mates with say an African, do you observe variation within the species when an Afro-Asian is born.

Evolution is gradual.
And FYI: there is more genetic variation between 2 random africans then there is between a random caucasian and a random asian, due to the genetic bottleneck of the ancestral population of both caucasians and asians that migrated out of africa thousands of years ago, seperating themselves from the genepool from the mother population in africa.

So you'll have to excuse me when I say I don't need mutations to create variation in the species, while your mutation does nothing except vary within the infraspecific taxa. And variations which change not the infraspecific taxa at all, for it still remains the same infraspecific taxa it always was.

Every new-born factually comes with a set of mutations that will be inherited by its direct off spring. That's just the way it is. Sticking your head even deeper underground won't change that.

At least you have this correct.

Says the person who does nothing but argue against strawmen.

No, ancestors of rabbits were rabbits

Nope.

, the descendants living today you may however classify as a subspecies or different infraspecific taxa if you like. You recognized the truth above, then do a complete 180.

You should really learn how family trees work.

No, it simply demonstrates that One Designer created them both.

So when a DNA test shows that your brother is your actual biological brother... it doesn't mean that you have common ancestors? It rather means that your god created both you and your brother???

That's exactly what you just said.

Your fellow evolutionist recognizes the truth, but probably won't follow through with it. Just as chlorine and gold share similarities yet one does not come from the other. I am sure you recognize this truth as well, but will likewise fail to follow through with it in your reasonings.

What I recognise, is that you have no clue what you are talking about. And you expose that fact with every single one of these silly posts filled with PRATTs and other nonsense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

She...

Whoepsie daisy.

I'll try and remember

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It does matter, because if they are the same species then they are merely infraspecific taxa in that species and no evolution is occurring.

It is evolution that produces infraspecific taxa...

The following link may save a lot of repetition and help those who wish to understand the problem with defining species that I am talking about: The Species Problem.

"... There is a continuum from total reproductive isolation (no interbreeding) to panmixis, unlimited interbreeding. Populations can move forward or backwards along this continuum, at any point meeting the criteria for one or another species concept, and failing others..."​