Evolution - Speciation finally observed in the wild?

[Justatruthseeker]

Hmm? Maybe you are right. Could you show me please? In 80,000 generations of E-Coli they remain E-Coli. So please show me...even over as many generations.

Actually they completed 100,000 generations this year and they are comparable to human lifespans which would equal 8,000,000 to 12,000,000 years for a human. So in 12 million years they’ve managed to prove mutation changes E. coli into E. coli.......

 

[xianghua]

Please tell me you're not serious??

from a materialistic perspective you cant consider a penguin as a biological robot?

 

[tyke]

Please explain "materialistic perspective" as you understand it and how you view robots.
Cheers

 

[pshun2404]

Actually they completed 100,000 generations this year and they are comparable to human lifespans which would equal 8,000,000 to 12,000,000 years for a human. So in 12 million years they’ve managed to prove mutation changes E. coli into E. coli.......

This is the truth however a generation in most ancient times was probably only about 15 years (when people mated and bore offspring) so based on that assumption (could have been 13 or 14) 80,000 x 15 = 1.6 million years and in even that time there has not been a single cross over from Ape (some say the autralopithicene) to human...we have them (who are now extinct) and humans who are not.

 

[tas8831]

from a materialistic perspective you cant consider a penguin as a biological robot?

No sensible person would.

ROBOT:

a machine capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically, especially one programmable by a computer.
synonyms: automaton, android, golem; More
-(especially in science fiction) a machine resembling a human being and able to replicate certain human movements and functions automatically.
synonyms: automaton, android, golem; More
-used to refer to a person who behaves in a mechanical or unemotional manner.
"public servants are not expected to be mindless robots"

MACHINE:

an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task.
"a fax machine"
synonyms: apparatus, appliance, device, contraption, contrivance, mechanism, engine, gadget, tool
"a threshing machine"
a coin-operated dispenser.
"a candy machine"
technical
-any device that transmits a force or directs its application.
-an efficient and well-organized group of powerful people.
"his campaign illustrated the continuing strength of a powerful political machine"
synonyms: organization, system, structure, arrangement, machinery; informalsetup
"an efficient publicity machine"
-a person who acts with the mechanical efficiency of a machine.
"comedians are more than just laugh machines"
synonyms: powerhouse, human dynamo; More




Unless you are employing an idiosyncratic definition of machine AND robot, then there is no rationale for considering a penguin ( or any other living thing) as a robot.

Give it up.

 

[tas8831]

This is the truth however a generation in most ancient times was probably only about 15 years (when people mated and bore offspring) so based on that assumption (could have been 13 or 14) 80,000 x 15 = 1.6 million years and in even that time there has not been a single cross over from Ape (some say the autralopithicene) to human...we have them (who are now extinct) and humans who are not.

Have you seen any act of Creation in your lifetime?

Has anyone?

 

[pitabread]

from a materialistic perspective you cant consider a penguin as a biological robot?

Not without rewriting the dictionary. Which if you have to do to support your argument, only reinforces how terrible an argument it is.

 

[tas8831]

It’s you that claims fossils show a phylogenic tree.

They can, yes. What that has to do with platypus bills I don't know.

It’s you that claims common ancestors split to become other species.

More or less, yes.

All I see now is you admitting no common ancestor can be found for any of these claimed splits.

I don't think I've ever stated otherwise.

I don't expect to ever be able to know with certainty what any specific ancestor was. But I fail to see a rationale for claiming creation - this would require that one simply ignore the cumulative evidence from multiple fields of study.

Unlike you I am not claiming a fish split into both a anphibian and reptile.

Nor that amphibians split to become mammals and birds.

I don't claim that, either - but what I think I see is an inability to interpret phylogenetic trees.
I started a thread on it - give it a try, won't you?

Asking for interpretations of this cladogram

You have Fossil evidence that humans have always been human. It’s only when we get to the point where supposedly humans and ape split, does the fossil record suddenly become non existent.

Were neanderthals human? What about this guy:

Or this one:

Modern human skulls are not contemporaneous, so are they 'sub-human'? Or just the Creator's tiral-and-error leftovers?

I’m not claiming Adam and Eve split to become different forms altogether.

No - you are claiming that Adam and Eve - with their perfect genomes - mated and produced offspring - who also presumably had perfect middle eastern genomes - and eventually, their offspring mated (incest) and somehow we got Asians AND Africans from this pristine middle eastern genome.

You keep totally ignoring that.

But then you claim that Asians and Africans mate and we get an Afro-Asian.

Great - i agree.

But I am still waiting for your evidence that a breeding pair with near identical perfect genomes mated and at some point, I guess about 2500+ years later, after all but 4 incestuous breeding pairs were allowed to live, we somehow got Asians and Africans and Norse and Inuit and so on.

It is, after all, your claim.

The fossil evidence supports me, not you, because as far back as you can trace man, they are always man. Race not observable in fossils.

That is your evidence?

That Adam and Eve - perfect middle easterners - gave rise to Asians and Africans by mating and there is no evidence for this in fossils, therefore, you are right?

'Race' can be observed in bone.


So you fail on that part.

Next.

Unless you wish to call both Denisovans and Neanderthal a separate race.

I would consider them other species or subspecies. You keep undermining your own argument for some reason. Are you implying that maybe Asians or Africans are descendants of Neanderthals?

As a matter of fact new findings are challenging your claims of this phylogenic tree you rely on.

Discovery of Oldest DNA Scrambles Human Origins Picture

I have not made any specific claims about human evolution, other than that we share a common ancestry with chimps. I read the article - tell me what you think in that article casts doubt on human evolution? Tell me exactly. And why.

Here is what I learned in graduate school, based on my own work on molecular phylogeny - the more recent we get, that is, the shorter amount of time there has been for any group's divergence into other species or subspecies, the less precise our estimates of phylogeny will be. Why? because in molecular phylogenetics, we RELY on mutations to provide signal, and the more recently the hypothesized splits occurred, the less signal there will be. In groups that diverged less than, say, around 250,000 years ago, generating phylogenies with a high degree of precision and reliability (unless you had a large amount of data, which we did not at the time) was not really possible. You could get trees, sure, but they generally had low-ish statistical support.
Something similar is afoot in human evolution, as we are looking at dates of generally less than 1 or 2 million years.

But please - use your linked article and explain what you mean.

I simply claim humans have always been humans. If you want to call them Neanderthals, or H. Erectus, that’s fine.

Nice circular argument.

Reminds of a post on here from earlier today in which a creationist wrote something like 'the design of X proves it was designed.'

So, I have posted several times those abstracts for papers tested molecular phylogenetics techniques on knowns. I have seen similar articles used and similar concepts discussed for decades, and I have creationists of all stripes dismiss, reject, misrepresent, misinterpret, etc. them. But I have never had a creation EXPLAIN to me why those techniques are suddenly invalid once we look at relationships above the genus level.

Can you be the first?

But it’s your claim of a common ancestor that split, so we can’t find one example of this common ancestor. Not just for man, but for any species where this claimed split took place.

It is your claim that a pure breeding pair from the middle east produced Asians and Africans.

Instead you have fully formed human fossils and fully formed ape fossils.

So which is this:

Human or ape? And how do you know?

Was it fully formed?

What would a half-formed ap look like, and how do you know?

We won’t count the orangutans skulls and pigs teeth evolutionists have used in an attempt to provide “evidence”. We won’t talk about piltdown man, hesperopithecus or Nebraska man, Pithecanthropus or Java man and the Wadjak skulls debacle, sinanthropus or peeking man, homo habilis, ramapithecus, or Australopithecus.

No we won’t show you really have so little evidence they find it necessary to manufacture it. Or how they mistake pigs teeth as human teeth, or orangutans skulls as human skulls.

it is so precious how you lump mistakes and hoaxes in with legitimate finds.

And remind us all which creationist was it that discovered those mistakes and hoaxes?

Never mind...

No, we won’t discuss your tendency to see exactly what you want to see.

So you won't discuss the Jamal ark hoax that creationists loved? What about the water-stain on the side of a building that evangelicals claimed was the Virgin Mary?

Regarding what we want to see - still waiting for your evidence for a pure breeding middle eastern created Kind that produced all manner of variation in a few thousand years.

Where are Adam and Eve's bones?

Why no fossils of Noah or Ham?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I never made such a claim. Your reading comprehension is as faulty as your understanding of biology.

I am sorry, you are correct you never made that claim, just your experts you follow do.

Human mutation rate revealed : Nature News

“Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome.”

Wonder how many in the x?

Really? I'm getting a sense of deja vu here. Does it ever occur to you to read up on the subject, you know, see what actual research and empirical data tells us? It's difficult to take you seriously when you just keep parroting your juvenile take on the subject.

Maybe have a look through this..

http://www.gxe2010.org/Speakers/pubs/Feldman_2003.pdf

You never know, you might learn something.

Yes, we learn they claim mutations can be used to calculate ancestory and age, but can’t seem to be able to use mutations to calculate ancestory or age when it comes to skin color. Are you saying that mutation can’t be tracked as easily as the others you claim? Or is it just wishful thinking for the others because that’s what they want it to indicate? Perhaps if you didn’t just accept everything you are told to believe but used logic, you would see the conflicting claims......

I'm not really interested in e.coli and I'm baffled as to why you mention them.

Of course you are not, they disprove evolution, why indeed would they interest you?

Did I suggest otherwise?



Aaaand back to the huskies.

Why yes you did, do we need to go back to other posts by you in other threads and show where you agree mutations can be used to decipher ancestry? But suddenly you agree that mutations can’t be used to decipher ancestry.

I see a contradiction not only in claims but in your beliefs....

 

[tas8831]

And yet all fossils always remain the same across millions of years. Not a single common ancestor that split can be produced. New forms appear suddenly, with no intermediarie, fully formed and functional.

So what was Tiktaalik?

Just like the Chinook, pizzly, grolar and every other variation appears suddenly, fully formed and functional. And neither Husky, Mastiff, polar bear, grizzly bear, or any other evolved into them.

So what mated to produce the Husky, Mastiff, polar bear, grizzly bear in the first place?

You keep shooting yourself in the foot and you seem oblivious to that fact.

I find that hilarious.

 

[pitabread]

So what mated to produce the Husky, Mastiff, polar bear, grizzly bear in the first place?

The original species had magic genomes, duh.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Have you seen any act of Creation in your lifetime?

Has anyone?

No, but then you’ve never seen common ancestors split in yours either. So we should discount both?

 

[tas8831]

So let’s see, you claim every human is born with over 100 mutations.

Yet Asian remain Asian, African remain African, Latino remain Latino, etc, etc, etc. despite all your claimed mutations.

100 mutations out of a genome of ~3 billion is....

Now, if creationist claims of a fully-functional genome had merit, you might have a point.

But thanks for yet again shooting down creationist arguments!

Yet when Asian mates with African, or Latino, or any, you see variation right before your eyes at the species level.

Where did Asians come from?

Where did Africans come from?

Which 2 pre-existing 'races' mated to make them?

And where did THEY come from - your scenario is self-defeating at every step.

I am not sure at this point as to whether you still cannot see this, or saw it a long time ago but cannot admit your error, or are just a Poe.

Any insight?

Let’s see, E. coli mutated over 100,000 generations, comparable to human lifespans equals 12 million years of mutation. We ended up with what? E. coli.

Is that how that works?

Can you explain how one species of coccus is differentiated from another?

I guess if you want to get superficial and claim a change in eye color once in awhile changes species, go for it.

You want to claim that all extant variation is via hybridization, yet you do not believe that variation arises via mutation, yet you claim that pure-breeding middle easterners, for example, can produce Asians, Africans, Norse, etc.

But when it comes down to it eye color, hair color or skin color is all just superficial.

Genetic Study Shows Skin Color Is Only Skin Deep | Smart News | Smithsonian

Precious how you link to an artiucle that demolished several of your beliefs - look at the subtitle:

"Genes for both light and dark pigmentation have been in the human gene pool for at least 900,000 years"

And why were "allies" for different colors in the human gene pool at all, seeing as how Adam and Eve had perfect, near identical middle eastern genomes?

But go ahead, show us where mutation has made the same change as Husky mating with Mastiff and producing the Chinook?

Since you just admit that phenotype-altering mutations exist (contradicting your earlier claims), what makes you think that there are no such mutations that affect other traits?

And still waiting for you to explain how a Husky and a Mastiff and a wolf arose from an original perfect-genome created Canine Kind.

And yet I can show you change in what, 28 weeks for dogs, nine months for humans.

Changes in humans in 9 months - wait, are you really equating development with evolution?

I suggest you look up the aortic arches in vertebrates. Good evidence for common ancestry there.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

So what was Tiktaalik?

An extinct amphibian. Predecessor to amphibians today, not a line that leads to man. That’s why you can’t find those common ancestors.

So what mated to produce the Husky, Mastiff, polar bear, grizzly bear in the first place?

Wolf, wolf, bear, bear.

Just like all dogs are descended from wolves, all bears are descended from whatever the first two bears were.

You keep shooting yourself in the foot and you seem oblivious to that fact.

I find that hilarious.

Only in your own mind where you ignore that as far back as you can trace bears they remain bears, until we get to that point were you insert the missing common ancestor. I’d make those same claims if I was in your shoes and refusing to face reality if I was unable to show any common ancestor, but only bears being bears.

 

[tas8831]

An extinct amphibian. Predecessor to amphibians today, not a line that leads to man. That’s why you can’t find those common ancestors.

Amphibians have necks?

Interesting.

Wolf, wolf, bear, bear.

So how do 2 wolfs mate and produce a NEW kind of canine?

Just like all dogs are descended from wolves, all bears are descended from whatever the first two bears were.

How is that possible when you claim that all variation is via hybridization?

Only in your own mind we’re you ignore that as far back as you can trace bears they remain bears, until we get to that point were you insert the missing common ancestor. I’d make those same claims if I was in your shoes and refusing to face reality if I was unable to show any common ancestor, but only bears being bears.

Ok.

Look - the Poe thing is cute for a while, but it is getting to be old hat now. Got anything new?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

100 mutations out of a genome of ~3 billion is....

Ridiculous to claim importance....

Now, if creationist claims of a fully-functional genome had merit, you might have a point.

The fact that even if we go by conservative estimates 60% is non functional, evolutionists are still debating if biological activity means function, it just proves that the genome was once more functional. I know you prefer fantasy to facts, but to now be a percentage non-functional, it must have once been that same percentage more functional. You can’t reduce functionality if you didn’t start with more functionality.

But thanks for yet again shooting down creationist arguments!

Only in your own mind because you still haven’t yet accepted less now, means more at one time.

Where did Asians come from?

Where did Africans come from?

Which 2 pre-existing 'races' mated to make them?

And where did THEY come from - your scenario is self-defeating at every step.

Only because you refuse to accept the evidence, that humans remain human as far back as you can go, until you get to this non-existent ancestor.

I am not sure at this point as to whether you still cannot see this, or saw it a long time ago but cannot admit your error, or are just a Poe.

Any insight?

Why yes, you refuse to accept the data and insert ancestors where none can be found. Because you don’t like where the evidence leads you.

Is that how that works?

Can you explain how one species of coccus is differentiated from another?

Arbitrarily by your own admission.

But I hate to point out to you how new variants arose, why it just might be similar to interbreeding.

http://emerald.tufts.edu/med/apua/about_issue/about_antibioticres.shtml

“Bacteria can acquire antibiotic resistance genes from other bacteria in several ways. By undergoing a simple mating process called "conjugation," bacteria can transfer genetic material, including genes encoding resistance to antibiotics (found on plasmids and transposons) from one bacterium to another. Viruses are another mechanism for passing resistance traits between bacteria. The resistance traits from one bacterium are packaged into the head portion of the virus. The virus then injects the resistance traits into any new bacteria it attacks. Bacteria also have the ability to acquire naked, "free" DNA from their environment.”

But I wouldn’t want to imply similarity of genome exchange. Why yes I would!

You want to claim that all extant variation is via hybridization, yet you do not believe that variation arises via mutation, yet you claim that pure-breeding middle easterners, for example, can produce Asians, Africans, Norse, etc.

Why not, you still fail to accept all dog breeds came from wolves through interbreeding. If the facts that over 100 breeds can exist this way can’t convince you, nothing will convince you 12-15 races can.

Precious how you link to an artiucle that demolished several of your beliefs - look at the subtitle:

"Genes for both light and dark pigmentation have been in the human gene pool for at least 900,000 years"

Doesn’t demolish my beliefs at all. It’s you that refuses to apply relativity and time dilation to an accelerating object....

And why were "allies" for different colors in the human gene pool at all, seeing as how Adam and Eve had perfect, near identical middle eastern genomes?

That’s your flawed assumption, because you need to believe they had near identicke genomes. And who said the original pair would be classified as middle eastern?

Since you just admit that phenotype-altering mutations exist (contradicting your earlier claims), what makes you think that there are no such mutations that affect other traits?

Never once said mutations can not affect skin color, eye color, hair color, or even cause birth defects. I see no contradiction at all since I have repeatedly stated mutations caused variation in skin color. But as was pointed out to you by your own biologists, such mutations have no bearing on ancestory.

And still waiting for you to explain how a Husky and a Mastiff and a wolf arose from an original perfect-genome created Canine Kind.

Self evident. A perfect genome would contain all variations possible within them. That’s why we got 100 breeds of dog from merely interbreeding wolves, even if they are not even the original pair.

Changes in humans in 9 months - wait, are you really equating development with evolution?

Yah I know, I’m your world things don’t mate I guess. Well let’s see. African mates with Asian. Nine months later a Afro-Asian is born. No I’m not equating evolution with anything, it doesn’t exist. Just the combining of genomes to create that new variant.

I suggest you look up the aortic arches in vertebrates. Good evidence for common ancestry there.

We certainly don’t need mutation and evolution to explain them.

“The aortic arches are formed sequentially within the pharyngeal arches and initially appear symmetrical on both sides of the embryo,[1] but then undergo a significant remodelling to form the final asymmetrical structure of the great arteries.”

All done by existing code within the genes. But we do know mutations lead to defects....

But continue to deny design, when every random change we observe leads to heath problems and necessity to correct surgically. So much for random chance...

 

[xianghua]

Here is why:

(especially in science fiction) a machine resembling a human being and able to replicate certain human movements and functions automatically.

so a walking robot that its made from organic components and has a self replicating system cant be consider as a robot if it evolved by a natural process? by the way (just as a note) anglish isnt my native so i may not understand some of your words.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yah well....
Unusual Use of DNA Aided in Serial Killer Search

It's an interesting case: two serial killers of different races were active in the same area at the same time, which the police force was unaware of at the time. It made the investigation particularly difficult, and partly contributed to assuming the culprit was of a specific race, as well as the profile of most serial killers being Caucasian men.

But of course, they didn't test race, but ancestry.

See above, apparently it can be done.

Never said ancestry couldn't be determined by a genetic test, but to be blunt, the 15% Native American this guy supposedly has in his DNA does not show whatsoever. I encourage you to look up a picture, though, because I do have prosopagnosia and am not reliable in assessing that myself.

Edit in because of a comment you made in another post:
pfft, African genes are dominant? ALL of them? Hahahahahahahahahahaha no.

Just gave you one, which led to the suspect.

It actually didn't lead to the suspect, it just made the police force stop assuming the culprit was Caucasian. The suspects criminal record and suspicious behavior ultimately gave him away.

Agreed, and fossils that look different, may not be different species at all. Like Triceratops and Torosoraus.

Those aren't different species... they are different genera (the plural for genus).
Edit in response to your other post: your wingnut position that they aren't doesn't really matter to me, honestly.

But since you can’t test their DNA, it’s only those visual differences that you claim aren’t valid indicators of difference to make claims of being different. Yes?

It'd help if you knew what you were talking about well enough to make a point I could even assess properly. You know so little about these dinosaurs that you didn't even know you weren't talking about individual species.

Edit in for the impatient man: 100% you learned about the brief controversy over the taxonomy of these genera from a second or third hand source that didn't acknowledge that the idea that these weren't the same organisms was discredited in 2011 (which is one year after the controversy began) and has never been the prevailing view in the scientific community. Not that minor taxonomy issues would be much of a problem for a theory that could stand without fossils entirely.

Yes let’s look at it.

If I wanted to read the Wiki, I would have found it for myself.

So we can conclude that the Lundehund was one of the first dogs created by man.

Wait, what? "Created by man?" From what? You think that species can't transition into other species, so where'd this dog come from? Some original dog breed? That doesn't fly with your assertion that the ONLY way new breeds can be produced is via crosses. And wolves simply do not have the variety of traits that dogs do. Webbed feet, black tongues, etc.

That all it’s toes were originally functional and still are. That it is wolves and later dogs that lost the ability to use all toes, that they became vestigial, merely dew claws.

You are making a baseless assertion that doesn't even make sense; there are plenty of different breeds of working dogs which would benefit from this trait, and no reason to breed it out of the population. Or are you going to assert that wolves originally had webbed feet too, and that people originally had 6 fingers on each hand just to ignore that mutations can add functional digits?

No mutation in the Lundehund, no evolution. It is all other breeds that their toes became vestigial from nonuse, being they no longer had to traverse rocky cliff faces.

How Lamarckian of you, and also incorrect because there are plenty of dogs and wolves which have to traverse rocky areas.

Yet seemed to object to a source, despite your claims you never demanded an expert or not.

The source was questionable due to the fact that anyone could give an answer without demonstration of accuracy or peer review. If, for example, the number of fossils discovered was an actual quantifiable number, surely you could find it from somewhere else? But to be blunt, if you could have easily found a more reliable source, you would have.

Must I go to every museums webpage and count up the number of fossils each says they have?

No, I asked you to do something I knew wouldn't yield much, since you ignored my comment about redundant fossils. It doesn't matter if there are a ton of fossils if there are quite a few which are redundant. It's not like every fossil found belongs to a newly discovered species. In light of that, you need to justify your continued assertion that there should be fossils for every transition.

But I am not the one that claims the fossil evidence backs my beliefs, then turns around and claims there’s hardly any evidence at all.

What are you even talking about? YOU are the one that tries to claim various fossils that aren't considered to be the same species are, and I dispute it. I am the one that claims that fossils aren't the best evidence for evolution in the first place, and that only a select few modern organisms have a decent fossil record for their evolutionary history. Humans happen to be one of those lucky organisms, so when people start claiming "nuh uh, no evolution 'cause no transitional fossils", I internally scream, try to bottle up my frustration, and calmly present the transitional fossils relevant to human evolution.

Fossils are never my go-to evidence for evolution

You insist on talking about them anyway, and since my efforts to direct you to challenge the much more relevant evidence, such as DNA comparisons, have failed, I've allowed you to mire down the conversation with more fossils.

Either it supports evolution because there is enough evidence to support that conclusion, or there are not enough fossils to support any conclusion. Which is it?

Why would it matter either way if fossils aren't the primary evidence for evolution to begin with? You keep inflating the importance of fossils for some reason, and I can't fathom any other reason for doing it other than you think they are easy to contend with. And you right, they are (compared to the other forms of evidence for evolution), fantastic.

But, to actually answer you: the theory of evolution assumes that it applies to all living organisms. Thus, a decently complete fossil record for any modern species supports the theory in general. It's unfortunate that many organisms, such as bats and jellyfish, don't have very extensive fossils records. But, humans, whales, and horses, among a few others, do have very extensive fossil records pertaining to their evolutionary history. It wouldn't make a lot of sense for this process to impact those organisms differently than every other, since they aren't biologically special or deviant.

Without fossils ate you Have is Husky mating with Mastiff creating the Chinook.

I looked up the origin of Chinook (the original individual) and have already told you that his lineage is unclear; he may or may not have been the product of crossbreeding, and neither of us can claim for sure one way or the other. I suggest never using that breed as an example again.

Asian mating with African creating the Afro-Asian. Polar bear mating with grizzly creating the pizzly or grolar. Ground finch mating with tree finch creating unamed finch.

Without them you have nothing at all.


It would show the same thing as you see with dogs, that you then mistake as one form evolving into another.

Define "form". You still have not adequately explained what you think can and can't happen via mutation. Also, again, if you are so sure, why avoid my evolution experiment?

RNA requires four nucliobases to work in concert. All at the exact same time, with no trial and error.

-_- you mean nucleobases... which are a component of RNA. I have no idea what you mean by "working together at the same time", because that chemically doesn't even make sense in the context of RNA replicating itself, DNA, or acting as an enzyme. Enzymes function as a product of their shape overall, and that shape forms consistently depending on the chemistry of the bases within the molecule. Atom A and Atom B aren't like "now Atom A, now is the time for you to move into this position, while I, Atom B, move into this position, catalyzing this reaction". The substrate touching the molecule disrupts the natural conformity of the enzyme, resulting in a temporary shape change until the reaction it catalyzes is complete. RNA and DNA are replicated one base at a time (and in segments for the lagging strand of DNA, not ever all at once), and the same goes for protein production, just one amino acid at a time.

Abiogenesis is crucial to the theory.

It's not and never has been. Evolution acts upon life, and it doesn't matter how that life originated in the slightest. The theory wouldn't be any different if the first microbe that existed formed naturally, was planted here by aliens, or was zapped into existence by a godly sneeze. It's the properties of cells that allow them to evolve, not their origins. Sure, on a 6,000 year time scale, the mechanism by which evolution occurs couldn't possibly result in the variety of life we see today starting with just microbes. Even if you could demonstrate such a time scale was relevant to reality, that wouldn't mean that, given enough time, evolution couldn't take place by the same mechanism outlined in the theory.

Without life their exists no evolution.

Yup, which is why abiogenesis is a separate thing entirely.

If you can’t explain life’s origin, all the evolution in the world won’t tell you how life began.

I absolutely agree, just like atomic theory won't tell you what causes diseases. Theories don't cover irrelevant material.

It’s the most fundamental question of all, because without that beginning evolution is a useless theory.

In your opinion. Which I disagree with. Knowing how populations change over time is useful in its own right, and to be extremely blunt, knowing how life originated isn't going to tell us nearly as much about how cells function now as evolution does.

Why would I expect to see a mammal fossil before fish? God created sea creatures first.

I wouldn't think a week would make much of a difference in terms of fossils. Unless you think sediments were being laid so fast one could actually watch it happen in real time. Plus, didn't death only exist after the fall, once everything had been created? Honestly, based on the Christian creation story, I'd genuinely expect to find some mammal fossils mixed in with some Cambrian stuff.

Finding that would falsify creation. Evolution has already been shown to be false as no animal evolves into another. Two mate to create a third.

-_- the most hilarious thing about your idea of how new species arise is the fact that it isn't even a form of creationism. It's literally an alternative mechanism for evolution; a really bad, unevidenced alternative mechanism for evolution, from the guy that wouldn't participate in an evolution experiment when I was begging him to.

 

[Speedwell]

so a walking robot that its made from organic components and has a self replicating system cant be consider as a robot if it evolved by a natural process? by the way (just as a note) anglish isnt my native so i may not understand some of your words.

If you saw a walking creature made from organic components and had a self-replicating system, how could you tell it was a robot?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Amphibians have necks?

Interesting.

Why yes they do.

Your skull is held on by magic on the other hand.

So how do 2 wolfs mate and produce a NEW kind of canine?

They don’t. They are all one Kind.

How is that possible when you claim that all variation is via hybridization?

You can’t find that claim anywhere. Have said repeatedly mutation may change hair color, eye color or skin color.

But it’s not what leads to a different form, such as the Chinook.

Ok.

Ok.

Look - the Poe thing is cute for a while, but it is getting to be old hat now. Got anything new?

Don’t need anything new, you have yet to refute the original claims. And not to sound Poe, but your ignoring them won’t make them go away. It’ll just show you have no answer.