-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Common ancestor between chimps and humans
- Thread starter UCDavis
- Start date
justlookinla
Regular Member
Except that it's not. Here, do some reading. You might learn somethinghttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060501_tiktaalik
Lots of guesses and suppositions going on in that link.
You have an opinion of what it explains. I don't think it explains anything, especially how, the process, whereby the life form was produced from an alleged single life form of long ago. A colossal failure of Darwinist evolution.
No it can't. The 'tree' doesn't offer evidence for anything but the suppositions of man. There's absolutely nothing offered by the supposed tree for how, the process, of a supposed single life form producing the varied life in the supposed tree.
Where does the picture indicate the how, the process? You and I know it doesn't.
Upvote
0
JonFromMinnesota
Well-Known Member
Where? Quote it.
It's not an opinion of anything. It's a fact. Cool thing about facts? It doesn't care what you believe. It's still a fact
Are you proud of your cognitive dissonance? You would be wrong. There is no other way to put it.
How is The Theory of Evolution a failure? It's the most substantiated theory in all of science. You have been presented just a tiny portion of the mountains of overwhelming evidence. You either don't have the ability to comprehend it or you do not even try. Maybe it's uncomfortable because it conflicts with your world view.
It shows the results of the process. It's already been told to you how it works. Evolution by natural selection over hundreds of millions of years. Genetic mutations give rise to new traits, natural selection decides what traits are desirable based on the environment. Those with the desirable traits survive, those without the desired traits die. This process goes on for millions and millions of years and is still an on going process. This is the most basic of concepts.
Upvote
0
honest question for you:
why does science ascribe HGT to genes in the human lifeline when in fact it doesn't know whether they evolved or were transferred?
why do you suppose that is?
Upvote
0
i noticed that you have failed to address any of the links in post 200.
for example:
sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/02/on-difference-between-neutral-theory.html
and this:
Scientists at the University of Liverpool have provided the first experimental evidence that shows that evolution is driven most powerfully by interactions between species, rather than adaptation to the environment.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100225091344.htm
for example:
The revolution is over and strict Darwinism lost. We now know that random genetic drift is an important mechanism of evolution and there's more to evolution than natural selection. Unfortunately, this blatantly obvious fact is not understood by the vast majority of people and teachers. There are even many scientists who don't understand evolution.
sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/02/on-difference-between-neutral-theory.html
and this:
Scientists at the University of Liverpool have provided the first experimental evidence that shows that evolution is driven most powerfully by interactions between species, rather than adaptation to the environment.
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100225091344.htm
Last edited:
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
We can start here.....
"The adaptations it had for this lifestyle ended up providing the stepping stones for vertebrates to climb onto dry land — but of course, Tiktaalik was not "aiming" to evolve features for land-living. Tiktaalik was simply well-adapted for its own lifestyle and later on, many of these features ended up being co-opted for a new terrestrial lifestyle."
It's not an opinion of anything. It's a fact. Cool thing about facts? It doesn't care what you believe. It's still a fact
No, it's not a fact, it's a guess....a supposition. You apparently believe those guesses, those suppositions are facts, but they're not.
The process which produced Tiktaalik from previous life forms isn't the most substantiated theory in all of science, it's not substantiated at all. The guesses and suppositions of Darwinist evolution may be one of the most fraudulent pseudo-science boondoggles ever perpetrated on mankind though.
What process? Where's the evidence for the process which produced Tiktaalik from previous life forms, based on the scientific method?
Yet, not a single solitary example of such a process can be shown to produce anything but life forms producing like life forms. Bacteria produces bacteria, moths produce moths, finches produce finches. Your 'hundreds of millions of years' is yet another guess, another supposition. It's not based on the scientific method.[/QUOTE]
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,333
- 52,693
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
After how many tries?
"Nope, not here, let's try over there."
"Nope, not here either, let's try over there."
"Nope, not here ..."
"Hey! Fellas! Over here! I found one!"
"Yup. Just as we predicted!"
Upvote
0
What you have not produced is the evidence that Adam or Noah had anything to do with the emergence of farming.
You are diverting the issue. You are trying to shift the question to us. YOU claim that Adam gave them this intelligence. Where is the evidence?
Says the person who expects everyone else to explain where intelligence came from without supplying evidence for his own explanation.
Upvote
0
When did anyone predict that T. rosae would be found in every shovel full of dirt within a sedimentary layer that spans a large portion of Canada?
Upvote
0
In the light of your complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of HGT and epigenetics, I question the value of your comments.
Let's use the human lineage as the example. Since sharing a common ancestor with chimps, the human lineage has only acquired 1 gene through HGT. Just one. This is out of about 30,000 genes total. The assumption is that the vast, vast majority of changes in the human lineage were acquired through mutations in genes inherited from that common ancestor. That assumption is intact.
Also, no one has even come close to demonstrating that epigenetics is responsible for the differences between chimps and humans. No one. What you are saying is that with the right environmental conditions that a human could suddenly give birth to a chimp, or vice versa. That is complete nonsense.
Not for human evolution, they aren't. The assumptions are still correct.
Upvote
0
They do know if they were transferred, and from whom they were transferred. For the human genome, they could only find 1 gene that came about through HGT since the human lineage split from the chimp lineage.
Upvote
0
Junk DNA that changes through genetic drift produces the same phylogeny as DNA under selection.
Other species are part of the environment.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,333
- 52,693
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,333
- 52,693
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
JonFromMinnesota
Well-Known Member
This isn't even remotely guessing.
Because evolution does not have a goal in mind. Again you demonstrate you have no clue what you're talking about and have no understanding of evolution.
Not a guess at all. The hypothesis for evolution is: "All living things on earth are related and they evolved by natural selection" This is then demonstrated to be true based on substantial evidence from several lines of study. It is a fact. This is reality. You don't have to accept it but the evidence is overwhelming in support of the theory. FACT
The theory of evolution is one of the most substantiated theories in all of science. Clearly you didn't comprehend what was being presented to you. Tiktaalik is just another piece of evidence for the theory. Again, you can say that it's fraudulent until you're blue in the face, you'll still be wrong.
Tiktaalik is a transitional form. It is a confirmation for evolution. Take what we know about evolution, make a prediction of where you'd find this fossil and what it will look like, prediction confirmed. Go ahead and scream till you're blue in the face that you don't think this theory is substantiated, this amazing discovery is just more evidence for it.
Wrong. It's confirmed in the fossil record, embryology, comparative anatomy, DNA. It's not a guess. The hypothesis that all life is related and evolved by natural selection over millions of years is confirmed through several lines of study. It's a fact.
You've demonstrated over and over and over and over again that you have no understanding for what the theory of evolution is, how it works and how it's been confirmed. I ask again Do you want my copy of "The Greatest Show on Earth"?
Upvote
0
why do you keep saying this is a fact?
But just as the comparative biologists of the late 19th Century could study anatomy and physiology based on a simple Darwinian foundation, so did many mid-20th Century developmental and cell biologists implicitly build their research on assumptions underwritten by the Modern Synthesis: hard inheritance, no orthogenetic "direction" to evolution, adaptation by natural selection, and so on. There were prominent Western scientists who dissented from this reliance on the Modern Synthesis, like C.H. Waddington. The scientific establishment of the Soviet Union, under the direction Lysenko, also offered substantial dissent from The Modern Synthesis.
However, some of the assumptions at the foundation of The Modern Synthesis started to crumble in the 1970s with the discovery of super-abundant genetic variation that arguably often didn't evolve under the strict aegis of natural selection. Then cells were found to incorporate genes, mobile genetic elements, and organelles of diverse historical origins. Furthermore, it became apparent in the last decades of the 20th Century that DNA sequences often evolved in ways that reduced the fitness of the organisms that bore them.
-The new biology beyond the Modern Synthesis.htm
notice the word ASSUMPTION in relation to hard inheritance, orthogenetic direction, and adaptation by natural selection.
explain to me how natural selection would allow DNA to evolve that REDUCED the fitness of the organisms that bear them?
why aren't you addressing these points jon?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
