• 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.

DNA as a programming language

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
Here is a comparison of chimp and human DNA:

blast.png


There are 11 substitution mutations that separate the human and chimp sequence. Can any creationist please tell me which of those mutations could not have been produced by the process of evolution?
 
Upvote 0

ecco

Poster
Sep 4, 2015
2,011
544
Florida
✟5,011.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
ecco said:
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!
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?

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.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ecco

Poster
Sep 4, 2015
2,011
544
Florida
✟5,011.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Stevevw
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.

I'll repeat it again:

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.

ecco:
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."




Stevevw various statements:
  • 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.


ecco previously
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”.

Stevevw:
I tend to not bring in religion at all to begin with.
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.

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?

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

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.
 
Upvote 0

ecco

Poster
Sep 4, 2015
2,011
544
Florida
✟5,011.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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.
The examples I gave were in response to someone asking about making lots of copies of the same thing.

(Is CRC really used on downloaded internet pages?)
 
Upvote 0

Black Dog

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2015
1,696
573
65
✟4,870.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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.

Luxury. When I started programming we had to get up at 5 am, and start copying a floppy on a one drive osborne....

 
Upvote 0

Black Dog

Well-Known Member
Sep 20, 2015
1,696
573
65
✟4,870.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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/

I was listening to some scientists on the radio, and they were saying that if the universe is super symmetrical, there are error checking codes in place with natural laws, and it means the natural laws of the universe actually evolved.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
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.

We could also figure out how many mutations did occur in the human lineage, and how many would have needed to be kept in order to get the observed divergence between humans and chimps.

The human mutation rate is 50 mutations per person. If we use a 1 million person population as our model, that would be 50 million mutations. With 5 million years since common ancestry with chimps and a 25 year generation time, that is 200,000 generations. 50 million mutations over 200,000 generations is 1E13 mutations, or 10 trillion mutations.

When differ from chimps by 40 million mutations. If we assume 20 million mutations a side, this would mean that out of the 10 trillion mutations that did occur in the human lineage we only had to keep 20 million of them, or just 0.0002% of the mutations. Out of those 20 million, most of those are neutral mutations, so that 0.0002% doesn't have to be 100% beneficial mutations.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,811
1,695
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟317,892.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.
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.

To keep religion out of the discussion, you point to papers that are critical of some aspects of "Darwinian" evolution.
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.

Do you realize that every article you quoted from and linked to supports macro evolution?

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

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.
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.
 
Upvote 0

ecco

Poster
Sep 4, 2015
2,011
544
Florida
✟5,011.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
ecco said:
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.

OK, let's cut to the chase.
  • You are not a creationist
-and-
  • You do not believe in evolution

So, please tell us the Stevevw theory of how we got here.
 
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
9,086
5,054
✟322,029.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.

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.

dinosaur_feathers2-660x460.jpg
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,811
1,695
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟317,892.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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.

dinosaur_feathers2-660x460.jpg
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
 
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
9,086
5,054
✟322,029.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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

ummm most of your links do nothing to challenge dinosaurs to bird as dinosaurs had feathers possibly as far back as the therapod/sauropod split possibly even further back. Also posting a link from 2000 is a bit disengenous as it wasn't till 1999 but didnt' grow till around 2001 and such when we started getting all the feathered dinosaurs from China and such.

http://www.livescience.com/48008-birds-dinosaurs-no-missing-link.html


And your lack of understanding of evolution or even family trees is dsiturbing, just as it be stupid to say, "How can you be descended from europeans as there were europeans while you lived." saying dinosaurs living long side birds doesn't in any way refute evolution, it doesn't say that therapods like t-rex and such were the ancestors of birds they were the descendants of the species that split off into birds.

And the fact that you dissmiss the picture shows a complete lack of understanding of both science and evolution, that one picture is the best evidence we have period. A fossil so well preserved that we can look at the feathers of that dinosaur and compare it to modern birds to get a strong idea of just what it looked like. But continue to dissmiss things, the more you stick your fingers in your ears and go, "NUHUH!!!!." it just makes you look silly and shows you don't care about truth, but just care about what you think is true.

here is a link to new data thats trying to figure out their true colours of that dinosaur, but the fact that the feathers are so well preserved that we can have a debate shows that dinosaurs had feathers.

http://www.nature.com/news/dust-up-over-dinosaurs-true-colours-1.12674

whats your answer to that? And the dozens and dozens of feathered dinosaurs, the evidence is pretty strong at this point the question is where in the dinosaur line did they evolve.
 
Upvote 0

whois

rational
Mar 7, 2015
2,523
119
✟3,336.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Previously asked in Post #89

OK, let's cut to the chase.
  • You are not a creationist
-and-
  • You do not believe in evolution
So, please tell us the Stevevw theory of how we got here.​
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.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
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.

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.
 
Upvote 0

whois

rational
Mar 7, 2015
2,523
119
✟3,336.00
Faith
Non-Denom
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.
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?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
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.

How so?

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.

Why can't we say what a human is genetically?

instincts are yet another unexplainable trait.

Why?

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?

Why can't it be explained by evolution?
 
Upvote 0

loveofourlord

Newbie
Feb 15, 2014
9,086
5,054
✟322,029.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
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?

for birds navigating, it sounds amazing, like the ones that can some how migrate from Alaska to Hawaii, how could they know that island is there. They don't, their instinct is to fly south and nest where they end up, so they anywhere south of Alaska and such, with fish I curious about that but I'm sure there are things that help them.

And not sure what you mean by geneticly we can tell what a human is geneticly, anc we look like hairless upright apes.

There are many things that can be taken into account for how animals learn things, take Salmon and such that go upstream, this behaviour probably started out when they were heading inland to a lake pretty close to the shore, but as continents move, erosion happens and such the trip seems impossible, also I wouldn't mind seeing a study done, though might be unethical, what happens if you tag all the fish leaving a river, damn the river, and then watch them when they come back, do those fish go to another river, what do they do. WHat % of fish come back to the exact same river, and what % end up at other rivers that are close enough also watching their migration when they leave and coming back might teach something about what they do and why.
 
Upvote 0

[serious]

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA
Site Supporter
Aug 29, 2006
15,100
1,716
✟95,346.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I'll take a look at those links. I'm hoping it isn't going to be a rehash of the whole bird/theropod track thing from a year or two ago.
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
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.

The source discusses theorized pulmonary systems of theropods, and the specific adaptations in the lineage of birds. The adaptations are explicitly stated to be absent in early birds including Archaeopteryx. Ruben is quoted in the article talking about some alteration to the specifics of bird lineages, but the quotes as they are presented don't seem to make much sense. In one quote, he's saying birds are found earlier than an unspecified dinosaur, and in another he points to differences in the skeletal structure of modern birds and dinosaurs, but in the paper itself he says that those structures are also absent from early birds. It's all over the place as presented, and I would tend to blame the reporter.
Winged Victory: Modern Birds Now Found to Have Been Contemporaries of Dinosaurs
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/winged-victory/
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!"

The article is behind a paywall, and does not provide any citations in the teaser.

Going from what we have, let's get some background. The earliest dinosaurs (which excludes pterodactyls and related species by the way) would be from about 250 million years ago. The earliest bird fossils are from about 150 million years ago. That means about 100 million years of dinosaur evolution before birds split off.
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
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.

Ruben, judging by his actual articles, seems like a decent scientist. That does not meant that he is immune from having pet theories that are out there.

I would normally scan the original paper, but it isn't specified and I've been typing for a while.
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.

The premise is further undercut by the later statement that the dinosaur was certainly flightless. I'm putting this in the bin of "theropods had feathers. some people are still getting surprised by this"

The journal article itself is paywalled.
Parrot Fossil from the Cretaceous Pushes Back Origin of Modern Land Birds
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/1998/1118/fossil.html
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.
 
Upvote 0

ecco

Poster
Sep 4, 2015
2,011
544
Florida
✟5,011.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
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.
There are essentially two competing concepts for the existence of humans on earth:
  • Evolution
  • Creationism/ID
You display a healthy sense of skepticism toward evolution. That's good. However, do you engage this same sense of skepticism toward the alternative?

Do you ask why you believe it? Is it because most of your friends and relatives believe it. Is it because the source of the concept is in stories that must be truth because they say they are truth?
 
Upvote 0