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.
A TINY BIT!Those individuals who got the "better" have a tiny bit more chance of producing offspring. A TINY BIT!
Those individuals who got the "worse" have a tiny bit less chance of producing offspring. A TINY BIT!
I agree totally.
Which is a problem for evolution.
What Darwin did not know is that
Mutations are 99.9% harmful or neutral at best
.1% or less beneficial
Which will add up faster?
but I would like to answer as well or pose a question. Isn't micro evolution changes within a species … Where as macro evolution is changes beyond the species where a Dino species becomes a bird or a dog like species (Pakicetus) becomes an aquatic creature.
You, like many others, believe in micro evolution but not macro evolution. But you cannot see that they are one and the same. The only difference is the scale of time and the impact of environmental changes.
I certainly did not say “ the majority of mutations are not going to add anything”. I said (in part) "...some may provide a tiny bit better eyesight...Those individuals who got the "better" have a tiny bit more chance of producing offspring."
- Beneficial mutations are rare according to evolution.
- Most mutations are either neutral or a cost to fitness.
- The thing is when you look into the evidence it doesn't work out.
- Evidence shows it would take more time than the earth has been in existence.
All religious people pick and choose how much and what parts of scripture to take literally. Using christianity as an example...
Some take all of scripture as 100% literal, OT and NT.
Some take parts like Genesis as allegory.
Some completely ignore the OT and just focus on Jesus.
Wherever this line falls, it defines the level of science that an individual accepts and what parts of science to disregard. Whenever personally held religious beliefs come in conflict with science, the religious beliefs will prevail.
There are tens of thousands of scientists who consider themselves to be christians and fully accept evolution. There are thousands of christian clergy who fully accept evolution. On the other end of the spectrum are people who will never accept parts or all of evolution because it conflicts with their “line in the sand”.
You don't bring it into the discussion, but it is what defines your beliefs. You can accept micro evolution. Indeed you must accept micro evolution to explain how we got from just two of the kind feline, to lions, tigers, panthers, etc. However, you do not accept macro evolution because that disagrees with your religious beliefs of creation.I tend to not bring in religion at all to begin with.
The examples I gave were in response to someone asking about making lots of copies of the same thing.what happens if you don't have anything to compare to?
downloads from the internet for example?
surprisingly, there are ways to catch these types of errors too.
the most simple scheme is the CRC, or cyclical redundency check.
You can copy a cd/dvd/BluRay millions of times without any errors. Whether the media contain music or code makes no difference.
Good software/hardware catches copy errors by reading the original and the copy and comparing the two.
In this peer-reviewed publication they find the "redundancy of the genetic code enables translational pausing". Which alone is fascinating, but in reading about how they found this out was the interesting part:
"Previously, evolutionary biologists have not been aware of the conceptual complexity required for genomic programming"
"We will demonstrate that the TP schema is a bona fide rule-based code, conforming to logical code-like properties."
"Within the genome domain, executable operations format, read, write, copy, and maintain digital Functional Information (FI)"
"They reveal the ribosome, among other things, to be not only a machine, but an independent computer-mediated manufacturing system"
"We show in this paper that the bit patterns representing TP instructions follow logical and linguistic rules that support their use in a non-ambiguous way."
"We posit that the operation of the ribosome can be viewed as a type of physical multi-core processor in terms of concurrently executing amino acid elongation and pausing control to enable protein folding."
"The ribosome functions as a multi core processing protein synthesis machine."
"The ribosome can be thought of as an autonomous functional processor of data that it sees at its input."
"Such an iterative process nicely lends itself to an algorithmic process should geneticists experiment with writing their own genetic code."
"It has been shown that both the genetic code and TP code are decoupled allowing simultaneous decoding and dual functionality within the ribosome using the same alphabet (nucleotides) but different languages."
"The TP code also exhibits a syntax or grammar that obeys strict codon relationships that demonstrate language properties."
Not just a metaphor, it demonstrates language properties. And all that was just to show:
"The functionality of condonic redundancy denies the ill-advised label of “degeneracy.”
Because:
"Redundancy of the genetic code enables translational pausing"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4033003/
ecco said: ↑
A TINY BIT!
What do you mean "Mutations are 99.9% harmful or neutral at best"?
99% of mutations are harmful, .9% are neutral.
.9% of mutations are harmful, 99% are neutral.
Please specify and show some sources.
.1% or less beneficial
Please specify and show some sources.
You also didn't quote the part I wrote about harmful changes never making out of the womb/egg and having no chance to be inherited.
First off I am not a creationists so you assume what I believe or dont believe. Yes many people accept micro evolution and as you said we see it in the variety of the same animals. There are many cat types, humans have artificially bred many dog types. In the lab we have made many fruit fly variations. But never anything apart form this. Never a fruit fly into a mosquito or a dog into cat type or any indication of steps that will show it is on its way to a cat or another type of animal. What is changed or tampered with is the existing features. A fruit fly wing, eye or antenna is added somewhere else on its body. But never a mosquito or other type eye, wing or antenna or any indication of that feature changing into something else.You don't bring it into the discussion, but it is what defines your beliefs. You can accept micro evolution. Indeed you must accept micro evolution to explain how we got from just two of the kind feline, to lions, tigers, panthers, etc. However, you do not accept macro evolution because that disagrees with your religious beliefs of creation.
No I dont always point to papers that are critical of evolution. I use papers that are questioning Darwinian evolution based on the evidence only and not religion. The evidence is the evidence not because of religion but because that is what is being found by the research. When they sequence the DNA of animals and find a lot of inconsistencies with what the theory of evolution claimed it isn't because they made it up because of their religious beliefs. Or chose to focus on this because they were biased through their beliefs. It was just what came up when they ran the test. So over recent times as techniques have become better and new discoveries have came out they have found many of these things that bring into question what Darwinian evolution claims.To keep religion out of the discussion, you point to papers that are critical of some aspects of "Darwinian" evolution.
Do you realize that every article you quoted from and linked to supports macro evolution?
This is the grey area I am talking about. To start with of course they are going to support Darwinian evolution if they believe it happened. But a few years ago many of the same were saying these new discoveries were just minor blips which are caused by other reasons and had an explanation for it to explain it away. Now many are saying that it has more influence than natural selection itself. So it is a continual change of discovery. But not all think that adaptive evolution is what causes major changes in creatures.They are just positing slightly different methodologies by which evolution occurred. The word "evolution" means micro and macro - all the way from single cell to very successful species like roaches and "advanced" species like us.
You don't bring it into the discussion, but it is what defines your beliefs. You can accept micro evolution. Indeed you must accept micro evolution to explain how we got from just two of the kind feline, to lions, tigers, panthers, etc. However, you do not accept macro evolution because that disagrees with your religious beliefs of creation.
The word "evolution" means micro and macro - all the way from single cell to very successful species like roaches and "advanced" species like us.
First off I am not a creationists so you assume what I believe or dont believe.
Still the evidence for macro change hasn't been shown and this is the real test.
First off I am not a creationists so you assume what I believe or dont believe. Yes many people accept micro evolution and as you said we see it in the variety of the same animals. There are many cat types, humans have artificially bred many dog types. In the lab we have made many fruit fly variations. But never anything apart form this. Never a fruit fly into a mosquito or a dog into cat type or any indication of steps that will show it is on its way to a cat or another type of animal. What is changed or tampered with is the existing features. A fruit fly wing, eye or antenna is added somewhere else on its body. But never a mosquito or other type eye, wing or antenna or any indication of that feature changing into something else.
So yes micro evolution has been shown and experimented on and this uses the existing genetics to be tampered with. The ingredients if you want to call it are there but are changed around. But the ingredients for building a wing from a creature who has never had wings is not there in the first place and no amount of mixing ingredients that havnt got the mix for wings is going to make it appear. That is the difference between micro and macro. One changes existing features?genetics within a species that already has those ingredients. Macro evolution has to make changes beyond a species level and add new ingredients/genetics to do so that were not there in the first place.
So evolution uses a mechanism that has been shown in micro evolution to assume it continues to work beyond a species level. If there is evidence for macro evolution besides what is seen with micro evolution then that needs to be shown. But as far as I understand that has never been verified. Showing fossil records or observational evidence isn't verifiable as it it left to some assumption and interpretation. Plus there is a lot of gaps and inconsistencies. It would need to be testable and verifiable to pass as adequate scientific evidence.
No I dont always point to papers that are critical of evolution. I use papers that are questioning Darwinian evolution based on the evidence only and not religion. The evidence is the evidence not because of religion but because that is what is being found by the research. When they sequence the DNA of animals and find a lot of inconsistencies with what the theory of evolution claimed it isn't because they made it up because of their religious beliefs. Or chose to focus on this because they were biased through their beliefs. It was just what came up when they ran the test. So over recent times as techniques have become better and new discoveries have came out they have found many of these things that bring into question what Darwinian evolution claims.
If anything there is a bit of bias and balking from evolution because its challenging the consensus that has been held for many years. Some want to hold onto the old ideas and see any challenge as a minor problem that can be explained away. But these minor issues have become more prominent and are now seen as not side issues but main driving forces for why animals change.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full
Horizontal gene transfer: building the web of life
http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v16/n8/abs/nrg3962.html
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics.
http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319163444
This is the grey area I am talking about. To start with of course they are going to support Darwinian evolution if they believe it happened. But a few years ago many of the same were saying these new discoveries were just minor blips which are caused by other reasons and had an explanation for it to explain it away. Now many are saying that it has more influence than natural selection itself. So it is a continual change of discovery. But not all think that adaptive evolution is what causes major changes in creatures.
If the main source of change comes from a co habitation with other creatures and the environment then this is making Darwinian evolution almost redundant. How do they know what was caused by natural selection and what wasn't. Maybe natural selection has a very weak selective role and only causes very minor changes like in Darwin's finches and their beaks, maybe the major changes comes from things that can transfer genetic material directly from one creature to another such as HGT, and cross breeding. Direct interactions between creatures, the environment or both. Even via micro organisms to complex living things. This is what the evidence is showing more and more.
Still the evidence for macro change hasn't been shown and this is the real test. Because many assumed that evolution was the answer to everything they defended it no matter what. Now the evidence shows it isn't and they are now acknowledging this. Maybe soon in the future there will be more discoveries like with the so called junk DNA that some want to still say is junk. Maybe here we will see that there are vast networks of genetics that have all the necessary ability to allow creatures to change by tapping into a large amount of genetic ability that has always been there. Maybe evolution may prove macro evolution in the lab who knows.
I am not sure which creature you have posted the picture of. It looks a bit like Archaeopteryx. The very fact that you post a picture shows that you also fall for the stories that have been made about Dino to bird evolution. You post no credible support for this and observational evidence can be open to interpretation. One of the things that evolution does is look for similarities in fossils to say that this shows that one creature evolved from the other, hence feathers on dinos or similarities in the feet or teeth on the beaks. But they neglect the many contradictory ones some of which show it may be impossible for dinos or at the the theropod’s that they say birds mainly came from to be the links they came from.Ummm again what do you think evolution is? What do you think is so radically different from cat and dog that they couldn't evolve from a bear like animal? WHat feature or limit prevents this kind of transformation?
And it's funny that all these so called assumption you guys want to claim we make, happen to fit what we already know, we knew birds likly evolved from dinosaurs.
guess what we find dinosaurs with wings, feathers, some preserved well enough we can tell their colours. At what point does it stop being a guess work and goes to fully real? How do you see something like this wich is what it looked like right down to it's colours and not say maybe evolution is true? thats dab smack between bird and dinosaur a perfect blend of the two, and this is what evolution predicts.
I am not sure which creature you have posted the picture of. It looks a bit like Archaeopteryx. The very fact that you post a picture shows that you also fall for the stories that have been made about Dino to bird evolution. You post no credible support for this and observational evidence can be open to interpretation. One of the things that evolution does is look for similarities in fossils to say that this shows that one creature evolved from the other, hence feathers on dinos or similarities in the feet or teeth on the beaks. But they neglect the many contradictory ones some of which show it may be impossible for dinos or at the the theropod’s that they say birds mainly came from to be the links they came from.
To start with the toes are wrong in both creatures. Theropod’s had 5 digits but lost two outer ones 4 and 5. Birds had 5 digits but lost the two in digits 1 and 5. So this is a major difference that cant be accounted for to start with that throws a spanner in the transitional works. But then he anatomy of birds that make it near impossible for them to have evolved from Dino's ie (maniraptoran theropod). The femur, or thigh bone in birds is largely fixed and makes birds into "knee runners," unlike virtually all other land animals. Its this fixed position of bird bones and musculature that keeps their air-sac lung from collapsing when the bird inhales. Birds need about 20 times more oxygen than cold-blooded reptiles, so have a special lung structure that allows a bigger breathing capacity and oxygen intake for high activity level.
Every other animal that has walked on land has a movable thigh bone including Dino's. The findings show that it makes it unlikely that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, such as tyrannosaurus or allosaurus. Dino's also lacked the specialized sternal and costal features of modern birds. The papers go into other structural differences such as the rib cage, free-swinging femur, rigid lateral abdominal wall and the fact of losing the diaphragm. These features are just not there in Dino's and show now transitions and are to major of changes for Dino's to go through without having some major problems for survival. So its easy to focus on a couple of similarities and ignore the many differences.
Then there the fact that modern birds have been found with Dino's and the time lines for what evolution say how birds evolved is contradicted. So I would say its an open and shut case that birds evolved from Dino's. Even the so called feathers on Dino's is in dispute. But even so just because a Dino may have some features of feathers doesn't mean they turn into birds. Different animals can have similar features to each other. The platypus has a mosaic of features from different creatures.
Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Links
Excerpt: “one of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities in their lungs,“ Ruben said. “However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....092055.htm
Winged Victory: Modern Birds Now Found to Have Been Contemporaries of Dinosaurs
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/winged-victory/
Feathered fossil proves that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...ds-did-not-evolve-from-dinosaurs-5370614.html
New dinosaur fossil challenges bird evolution theory
http://phys.org/news/2013-01-dinosaur-fossil-bird-evolution-theory.html#nRlv
Parrot Fossil from the Cretaceous Pushes Back Origin of Modern Land Birds
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1998/1118/fossil.html
<snip long post>
i can't speak for steve, but my main objection is one of methods.Previously asked in Post #89
OK, let's cut to the chase.
-and-
- You are not a creationist
So, please tell us the Stevevw theory of how we got here.
- You do not believe in evolution
i can't speak for steve, but my main objection is one of methods.
it's because of the sheer impossibility of life ever getting off the ground in the first place.
it's almost like saying "see that car over there? it self assembled itself from the raw ore."
this is basically the same conundrum that life poses to science.
yes, we can build the car if we have the machinery, but the machinery doesn't exist in regards to life.
IOW, cells must be created by the macinery of DNA, but DNA cannot be produced without the cell.
and this is only the first step.
this is part of the conundrum.If the first simple cell was created by a deity and all the biodiversity we see today evolved from that first life, the theory of evolution would be unchanged. One does not depend on the other.
it isn't only in regards to the first life, the entire biomolecular complexity of the cell.
the entire paradigm of life itself is an enigma.
genetically we can't say what a human is, but we can look at one and easily pick it out from all the other forms of life.
instincts are yet another unexplainable trait.
some birds can navigate the heavens they have never seen before.
some fish, likewise in water.
how can this stuff be possibly explained by evolution?
this is part of the conundrum.
i mean, let's face it, . . . nevermind.
it isn't only in regards to the first life, the entire biomolecular complexity of the cell.
the entire paradigm of life itself is an enigma.
genetically we can't say what a human is, but we can look at one and easily pick it out from all the other forms of life.
instincts are yet another unexplainable trait.
some birds can navigate the heavens they have never seen before.
some fish, likewise in water.
how can this stuff be possibly explained by evolution?
Read it, but they don't explain why this rules out birds from being descended from theropods. Basically, the author of this article (as opposed to the author of the paper) is saying that birds have a unique bird specific feature (an abdominal air sac), and fails to address why that couldn't be a subsequent adaption post split. Let's go to the source.Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Links
Excerpt: “one of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities in their lungs,“ Ruben said. “However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....092055.htm
Shaking my head right from the title. All dinosaurs going extinct right when birds emerged isn't theorized by anyone with a brain in their heads and a modicum of education in the subject. It's like saying, "The founding fathers can't have been descended from europeans because they were contemporaries with europeans!"Winged Victory: Modern Birds Now Found to Have Been Contemporaries of Dinosaurs
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/winged-victory/
A little happy accident here. You know how I mentioned that pterodactyls aren't actually dinosaurs? Well, they are talking about a flying lizard that isn't a dinosaur. They suggest that this must mean that birds are descended from the flying lizard rather than dinosaurs, but that's because they are terrible at understanding science. Basically, the idea is this, if anything had feathers before dinosaurs, birds aren't dinosaurs!" Doesn't make much sense, does it? This pushes the origins of feathers back some if it pans out, but doesn't impact bird evolution in the slightest. As a bonus, it happens to be the same scientist as the first one, so I'm going to reverse course and say that article 1's reporter was probably accurately recording some fringe theories by the scientist.Feathered fossil proves that birds did not evolve from dinosaurs
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...ds-did-not-evolve-from-dinosaurs-5370614.html
First line: "The discovery of a new bird-like dinosaur from the Jurassic period challenges widely accepted theories on the origin of flight." Flight has actually evolved several times independently. Off the top of my head, bats, birds, insects, and pterodactyls all independently evolved flight. It would not be surprising if there was another lineage to add to that list.New dinosaur fossil challenges bird evolution theory
http://phys.org/news/2013-01-dinosaur-fossil-bird-evolution-theory.html#nRlv
This one isn't about the origins of early birds at all. It's about the timing of features of modern birds 70 million years after Archaeopteryx.Parrot Fossil from the Cretaceous Pushes Back Origin of Modern Land Birds
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1998/1118/fossil.html
There are essentially two competing concepts for the existence of humans on earth:it's because of the sheer impossibility ... that car over there? it self assembled itself from the raw ore.
cells must be created by the macinery of DNA, but DNA cannot be produced without the cell.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?