Fish finger fossils show the beginnings of hands

[Kylie]

i dont think so:

"“What the Liu team found was that optimizing all the codons used by the fungal biological clock knocked the clock out, which was totally unexpected!"

so the designer probably know better than these scientists who think that the code is sub-optimal.

And this is perfectly explainable by evolution. If different variations were used, the ones that used the most effective and efficient versions would have a reproductive advantage over the ones that don't.

This is not the evidence against evolution you think it is, which you'd know if you actually understood evolution.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

"4" and "four" have the same functional meaning (in English) and that is not really any different from two (or is that 2?) codons that translate to the same amino acid. Prevailing style may prefer the use of one over the other, but the meaning is fixed.

Cats have four legs.
Cats have 4 legs.

Same meaning, different "codons".

("Cats have for legs." not a grammatically valid sentence.)

My point is that, while multiple codons may code for the same amino acid, differences in the way they affect the decoding machinery cause differing results in the cell (which is what the paper was about). So their 'functional meaning' is the same with respect to amino acids, but not the same in other respects. It would appear that evolution has found a way to use this to advantage.

 

[loveofourlord]

First you called evolution a fact then a theory, and one wonders why it is touted so highly.

perhaps you should learn the meaning of words before you mock their usage.

 

[loveofourlord]

Why would any chemical want to self replicate?

That would go against entropy and the trend toward disorganization.

I love it when creationists use gotcha questions that shows they have no clue about anything they are trying to refute.

 

[SkyWriting]

I love it when creationists use gotcha questions that shows they have no clue about anything they are trying to refute.

I'm not a creationist. What was that about having clues?

 

[loveofourlord]

I'm not a creationist. What was that about having clues?

what are you then, you sure have the same mantra of one there.

 

[SkyWriting]

what are you then, you sure have the same mantra of one there.

What was that about having clues?

 

[crossnote]

perhaps you should learn the meaning of words before you mock their usage.

I know the difference between a fact and a theory. Evolution is not a fact.

 

[loveofourlord]

What was that about having clues?

Your the one using creationists talking points, don't blame me,

 

[loveofourlord]

I know the difference between a fact and a theory. Evolution is not a fact.

no you don't as was obvious from your response, but enlighten me about the difference? Evolution is a fact, your saying it's not doesn't change that. Nor does saying that prove anything, ironic to be saying that in a post about evidence for evolution.

 

[Strathos]

I know the difference between a fact and a theory. Evolution is not a fact.

The fact is that organisms change over time as they reproduce.

The theory is what explains how and why this happens.

 

[Qwertyui0p]

Sorry, failed source. If you want to know how something happened one applies the scientific method. To work at creation.com one must swear not to use the scientific method.

There is a reason that I am always offering to go over the basics with the uneducated. Do to your lack of education you keep referring to lying sources. Which means that even though you may not be lying yourself you are still breaking the Ninth Commandment since you are bearing false witness against your neighbor.

And you should not use lying sources. There is no lack of transitional fossils. When Darwin formed his theory paleontology was in its infancy. Of course there were huge gaps. Guess what, most have been filled. That is what this thread is about, another gap that got filled. And you are moving the goal posts when you ask about the origin of the genetic code. That amounts to an admission that you are wrong. Abiogenesis is a separate but related topic. Evolution does not rely on natural abiogenesis (though there is strong evidence for it and none for any other concepts). By shifting the topic to abiogenesis you admit that evolution is a fact.

I mentioned Abiogenesis because it was mentioned in the article.

 

[Kylie]

The fact is that organisms change over time as they reproduce.

The theory is what explains how and why this happens.

Quoted because this is so important that it needs to be said again.

 

[crossnote]

no you don't as was obvious from your response, but enlighten me about the difference? Evolution is a fact, your saying it's not doesn't change that. Nor does saying that prove anything, ironic to be saying that in a post about evidence for evolution.

You saying I don’t know the difference doesn’t make it so either; and just saying evolution is a fact doesn’t make it so.
When and how did the theory of evolution become a fact?

 

[crossnote]

The fact is that organisms change over time as they reproduce.

The theory is what explains how and why this happens.

I wasn’t referring to microevolution amongst organisms but macroevolution across species.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You saying I don’t know the difference doesn’t make it so either; and just saying evolution is a fact doesn’t make it so.
When and how did the theory of evolution become a fact?

Evolution always was a fact. Just as gravity always was a fact. Your question is poorly asked.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wasn’t referring to microevolution amongst organisms but macroevolution across species.

Macroevolution has been observed as well. Your sentence is poorly worded. Speciation is by definition macroevolution. We have observed speciation, in nature and in the laboratory. Therefore macroevolution has been observed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I mentioned Abiogenesis because it was mentioned in the article.

So what? It was a failed source.

 

[crossnote]

Evolution always was a fact. Just as gravity always was a fact. Your question is poorly asked.

When has evolution been tested and observed repeatedly?

 

[Subduction Zone]

When has evolution been tested and observed repeatedly?

When hasn't it been would be a better question.