Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

TagliatelliMonster · Oct 21, 2016

-57 said:
Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are some of the most cited evidences for evolution.

Because they are (or at least, they should be) very easy to understand.

They are part of the suite of ‘junk DNA’ that supposedly comprised the vast majority of our DNA.

No, they are not.

ERVs are said to be parasitic retroviral DNA sequences that infected our genome long ago and have stayed there ever since.

An ERV is the result of viral insertion in DNA, yes.
If this happens in reproductive cells, the ERV's can be inherited by off spring.
When that happens, and that bloodline is succesfull in spreading its genes, then the ERV will become part of the genome throughout the population.

However, the term ‘endogenous retrovirus’ is a bit of a misnomer. There are numerous instances where small transposable elements thought to be endogenous retroviruses have been found to have functions

Nobody says that these things can't have function. They are part of the genome after all...

The point is not about what ERV's do in DNA today. The point is about how ERV's end up in DNA.

which invalidates the ‘random retrovirus insertion’ claim.

No, it does not.

For instance, studies of embryo development in mice suggest that transposable elements (of which ERVs are a subset) control embryo development. Transposable elements seem to be involved in controlling the sequence and level of gene expression during development, by moving to/from the sites of gene control.3

None of this is relevant to how those ERV's ended up in the DNA.

Evolutionists have used shared mistakes in ‘junk DNA’ as ‘proof’ that humans and chimps have a common ancestor. However, if the similar sequences are functional, which they are progressively proving to be, their argument evaporates. ref

No, it doesn't.
Because again... the evidence of ERV's as it supports evolution, is not about the role or function of those DNA sequences in extant species. It is about how ERV's end up in DNA.

These are 2 very different things and they are not related to eachother.

TagliatelliMonster · Oct 21, 2016

OldWiseGuy said:
Thankyouthankyouthankyou! You've made my day!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_penguins

-57 · Oct 21, 2016

TagliatelliMonster said:
...perfectly in line with what evolution predicts.

The same can be said for creation science.

TagliatelliMonster said:
Again, like always, it is about the pattern in which they are distributed.
Evolution, combined with geology (and the moving of continents), predicts a specific distribution pattern. This prediction is consistent with the actual pattern we observe in the world.

Or where the kangeroo kinds established themselves after the flood...and couldn't get off Australia after the land bridges were covered with water. A second theory suggest they were brought to Australia by people after the flood where they populated Australia.

TagliatelliMonster said:
If evolution is correct, then species that evolved on a continent (like australia) after it drifted away from the other continents and thus genetically isolates life living on that continent, should only be found on that particular continent.

Creation models can say the exact same thing. Above I gave you two likely means.

TagliatelliMonster said:
If we would discover a population of kangaroo's in latin america, that would pose a real problem. But we don't find such things.

If we did find a population of kangaroo's in Latin America you would then use my argument that people brought them there where they populated.
There are two theories on how the horse came to America....they were introduced there by people...or they were always there. Some even suggest if the Bering Straits land bridge wasn't there at one time in history the horse might not be in Eurasia. Some think the species went extinct in the Americas and then were reintroduced later on.
There are many ways to look at the kangaroo's in Australia and why they could be there.

-57 · Oct 21, 2016

TagliatelliMonster said:
No, they are not.

Great argument.

Speedwell · Oct 21, 2016

rjs330 said:
Why did creatures evolve to have wings? Why did they need wings? What part of the DNA decided we need,to evolve wings to fly? If it it took a million years to do it why? If wings were so important to survival it didn't happen quick enough. There was,no point because the creatures were still dying and the development of wings would have been found to be useless.

Evolution didn't "decide" to make wings.

Here is a little thought experiment for you, which is more or less what the fossil record tells us:

A four-legged species found itself in an environment where running was important, where two-legged running was an advantage, where the forelimbs were not then used for very much but balance during running, where some variants began to use them for gliding short distances, then longer distances, then for continuous flight. All of this happened a small step at a time, with natural selection favoring slight changes. Each step in the process produced a creature with a small reproductive advantage in the particular environment in which it lived. Never did evolution "set out" to evolve a flying creature. Never were wings evolving as useless appendages until full flight could be achieved.

-57 · Oct 21, 2016

Speedwell said:
All of this happened a small step at a time

What process allows this to happen? How did the genetic information in the DNA code increase? Will you provide us with answers or more speculation?

In humans if the base pairs of DNA were each a mile long and lined up they would reach all the way out to Pluto. Unless the entire base pairs were responsible to form a photo-wing the odds of a beneficial mutation changing the DNA in just the right place at just the right time....over and over again tells us evolutionism is impossible and not responsible for the vast amount of genetic information contained in DNA.

Perhaps the penguin is displaying a evolutionary reversal.

Speedwell · Oct 21, 2016

-57 said:
What process allows this to happen? How did the genetic information in the DNA code increase? Will you provide us with answers or more speculation?

In humans if the base pairs of DNA were each a mile long and lined up they would reach all the way out to Pluto. Unless the entire base pairs were responsible to form a photo-wing the odds of a beneficial mutation changing the DNA in just the right place at just the right time....over and over again tells us evolutionism is impossible and not responsible for the vast amount of genetic information contained in DNA.

That's all just nonsense which has nothing to do with what the theory of evolution actually says--but I expect you know that.

Perhaps the penguin is displaying a evolutionary reversal.

Not reversal, merely adaptation. The fossil record tells us that the ancestors of the penguins were flying birds who found themselves in an environment where flying was not so important to their survival as diving and swimming. Over time, slight variations better suited to diving and swimming were selected over those which were not. Eventually, the creatures lost the ability to fly as their swimming ability improved, and voila! we have penguins.

-57 · Oct 21, 2016

Speedwell said:
That's all just nonsense which has nothing to do with what the theory of evolution actually says--but I expect you know that.

Not reversal, merely adaptation. The fossil record tells us that the ancestors of the penguins were flying birds who found themselves in an environment where flying was not so important to their survival as diving and swimming. Over time, slight variations better suited to diving and swimming were selected over those which were not. Eventually, the creatures lost the ability to fly as their swimming ability improved, and voila! we have penguins.

Reference please.

Speedwell · Oct 21, 2016

-57 said:
Reference please.

Any introductory college genetics text which you care to consult.

-57 · Oct 21, 2016

Speedwell said:
Any introductory college genetics text which you care to consult.

I've look and found your reference lacking.

Speedwell · Oct 21, 2016

-57 said:
I've look and found your reference lacking.

Name the text.

-57 · Oct 21, 2016

Speedwell said:
Name the text.

Your text. Present it or retract.

OldWiseGuy · Oct 21, 2016

TagliatelliMonster said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_penguins

I knew that. It was really done well though.

Kylie · Oct 21, 2016

OldWiseGuy said:
The theory predicts what has happened, not what will happen. It's the 'mousetrap' all over again. Because there is a complete mousetrap now there must have been an incomplete mousetrap sometime in the past that organized itself over time into a complete mousetrap.

Nope. Evolutionary ideas were used to predict an animal that had not been discovered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanthopan_morgani

http://io9.gizmodo.com/darwin-predicted-this-animals-existence-decades-before-1703223208

Isn't "nested hierarchy" just a different way of saying common design i.e. design that is common or unique to that species?

Nope. Only nested hierarchy can explain why dolphins and other cetacea have lungs instead of gills.

Kylie · Oct 21, 2016

OldWiseGuy said:
Penguins use their wings to 'fly' through the water. Without them they couldn't maneuver fast enough to catch fish. They are also used as 'arms' for balance while walking on ice. Great design.

And if wings are so good for underwater creatures, why does almost no other aquatic animal have them? Only a few other diving birds, and they are nowhere near as at home in the water as penguins.

The fact is that the penguin is best explained by evolution - birds evolving to become more and more aquatic.

TagliatelliMonster · Oct 22, 2016

-57 said:
Great argument.

Well... if you are just going to quote 4 words from the post... chances are that you are going to miss the point of the post...

TagliatelliMonster · Oct 22, 2016

-57 said:
The same can be said for creation science.

No. Because creationism makes no such testable predictions. Exactly the point.

TagliatelliMonster · Oct 22, 2016

OldWiseGuy said:
I knew that. It was really done well though.

Indeed. I had to look twice as well

I was like "WUT???"

OldWiseGuy · Oct 22, 2016

KTS said:
Nope. Evolutionary ideas were used to predict an animal that had not been discovered.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/darwin-predicted-this-animals-existence-decades-before-1703223208

I too would have predicted a 'pollinator' with a long tongue, one created for that purpose. What are the odds that flower and moth 'co-evolved'.

Speedwell · Oct 22, 2016

OldWiseGuy said:
I too would have predicted a 'pollinator' with a long tongue, one created for that purpose. What are the odds that flower and moth 'co-evolved'.

Pretty good. The moth, after all, is part of the selective environment of the flower and the flower of the moth's. One might even say that the entire biosphere "co-evolved."

Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency