Evolution's Brick Wall

[DogmaHunter]

How about the fact that it doesn't happen in such highly conserved genes, one would be fatal.

And the individual in which it would occur would thus die.
That's quite a selection pressure. Hence highly conserved.

It's called natural selection.

That's why only two substitutions are allowed over 300 million years. You have the justification, the deleterious effects on brain related genes, now your just arguing in circles.

Not sure what your point is.
These things are perfectly logical, expected even, in an evolutionary framework. What seems to be the problem?

I don't know what particular genes you are talking about and even if I did, likely I wouldn't know if the numbers you cite are accurate.

However, from my basic understanding of evolution, I'ld say that highly conserved sequences for certain functions are indeed expected. I remember some example of a sequence that regulates sugar metabolism or something of the sort. Virtually identical in all species. Plants, animals,... I don't see this as a problem.

 

[mark kennedy]

And the individual in which it would occur would thus die.
That's quite a selection pressure. Hence highly conserved.

It's called natural selection.

That's not natural selection, it's a naturalistic assumption. The deleterious effects on brain related genes comes with things like cancer and tumors, a mutation in this regulator would kill the fetus in the womb.

Not sure what your point is.
These things are perfectly logical, expected even, in an evolutionary framework. What seems to be the problem?

Yea right

I don't know what particular genes you are talking about and even if I did, likely I wouldn't know if the numbers you cite are accurate.

Its documented, HAR 1f and other brain related have been thoughly characterized.

However, from my basic understanding of evolution, I'ld say that highly conserved sequences for certain functions are indeed expected. I remember some example of a sequence that regulates sugar metabolism or something of the sort. Virtually identical in all species. Plants, animals,... I don't see this as a problem.

Thats the whole problem, nothing is a problem for you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's not natural selection

Except that it is. Keep the good, discard the bad. Classic natural selection.

, it's a naturalistic assumption

That makes no sense.

The deleterious effects on brain related genes comes with things like cancer and tumors, a mutation in this regulator would kill the fetus in the womb.

And thus discarding the bad.
Am I missing something here?

Yea right

You disagree?
Care to explain why?

Its documented, HAR 1f and other brain related have been thoughly characterized.

And?

Thats the whole problem, nothing is a problem for you.

Certain sequences in DNA with lots of selection pressure on it, is not a problem for evolution no.

I don't know what else to tell you.
Are you claiming it is a problem? If yes, explain how it is a problem.

 

[Job 33:6]

There is by no means that the single fossil, Toumai, is a human ancestry. Like paranthropus there is every indication of a gorilla chimpanzee ancestor. According to convention there are many human ancestor fossils and few chimpanzee and gorilla fossils. Its been my experience the opposite is in fact the case.

Well, I disagree. I would say that we have countless fossils showing us what our ancestors looked like. The vast majority dating well beyond 2 million years.

 

[Job 33:6]

How about the fact that it doesn't happen in such highly conserved genes, one would be fatal. That's why only two substitutions are allowed over 300 million years. You have the justification, the deleterious effects on brain related genes, now your just arguing in circles.

Ok, so when exactly were you going to share some sort of source supporting this?

We already know that rates of evolution can vary due to environmental stresses. Some organisms such as alligators have gone millions of years and have experienced little change. But that doesn't mean that if they do change at a faster rate, that they would simply die.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, I disagree. I would say that we have countless fossils showing us what our ancestors looked like. The vast majority dating well beyond 2 million years.

Except their not human fossils, they are apes.

 

[mark kennedy]

Ok, so when exactly were you going to share some sort of source supporting this?

Just not going to bother while fielding pedantic one liners. Try looking up HAD 1f.

 

[Job 33:6]

Except their not human fossils, they are apes.

They have human traits. I disagree. I'd say they are part human fossils and part proto ape.

 

[Job 33:6]

Just not going to bother while fielding pedantic one liners. Try looking up HAD 1f.

Ok? So you don't have sources to support your words. That's about all I can gather from this response.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Except their not human fossils, they are apes.

They are mammals too.

Which makes sense, considering humans are mammals. And apes.
What wouldn't make sense though, is finding humans older then 2 million years.
So I wonder what you are complaining about....

 

[Job 33:6]

That's precisely it^. If anyone has issue with these being ancestral fossils. Then show that they aren't in an order supporting common descent.

You can't just plug your ears and say "nope! Even though the past 500 million years or life transitions toward being more and more human like, all of a sudden at 2 million years, even though fossils continue to become more and more human like, none of them are human until they are human".

While simultaneously having to look down at the fossil succession to a period spanning less than 2 million years (in a record of complex life spanning 600 million) and turning blinders on all other fossils and what they depict.

Meanwhile, the fossils we do have in under 2 million years continue to become more and more and more human like.

 

[Job 33:6]

"there are no hominid fossils older than 2 million years"

Response:sahelanthropus

"Well....I just don't believe it."

Ok?

 

[DogmaHunter]

"there are no hominid fossils older than 2 million years"

Response:sahelanthropus

"Well....I just don't believe it."

Ok?

Uhu.

Like the christian biologist Ken Miller said once in some debate with cdesign proponentsists :
"This is what Richard Dawkins calls the argument from incredulity. Being: my evidence against evolution, is that I don't believe it"

 

[sfs]

How many hoops do you think I'm gonna jump through for you? Read the first two chapters of Genesis, it's not that long... that's what I believe.

Origen, Peri Archon:

So that what we say may be understood quite concretely, let us now bring the argument to bear upon actual passages in Scripture. To what person of intelligence, I ask, will the account seem logically consistent that says there was a "first day" and a "second" and "third", in which also "evening" and "morning" are named, without a sun, without a moon, and without stars, and even in the case of the first day without a heaven? And who will be found simple enough to believe that like some farmer "God planted trees in the garden of Eden, in the east?" and that He planted "the tree of life" in it, that is a visible tree that could be touched, so that someone could eat of this tree with corporeal teeth and gain life, and, further, could eat of another tree and receive knowledge "of good and evil"? Moreover, we find that God is said to stroll in the garden in the afternoon and Adam to hide under a tree. Surely, I think no one doubts that these statements are made by Scripture in the form of a type by which they point toward certain mysteries. . . But there is no need for us to enlarge the discussion too much beyond what we have in hand, since it is quite easy for everyone who wishes to collect from the holy Scriptures things that are written as though they were really done, but cannot be believed to have happened appropriately and reasonably according to the narrative meaning.

 

[mark kennedy]

They have human traits. I disagree. I'd say they are part human fossils and part proto ape.

Id say they are apes

 

[mark kennedy]

Ok? So you don't have sources to support your words. That's about all I can gather from this response.

Not if your not going to read them, look up HAR 1f

 

[mark kennedy]

They are mammals too.

Which makes sense, considering humans are mammals. And apes.
What wouldn't make sense though, is finding humans older then 2 million years.
So I wonder what you are complaining about....

They are not humans, they are apes. The hominid line doesn't start until 2 mya when the cranial capacity doubles over night without explanation.

 

[VirOptimus]

They are not humans, they are apes. The hominid line doesn't start until 2 mya when the cranial capacity doubles over night without explanation.

Humans are apes by definition.

 

[xianghua]

Trying to imagine what a million years is like is basically impossible.

i dont think so. take a car for instance. we can know what will happen to the car a million years from now. this is also true for a living thing. a bacteria will not evolve into a dog.

 

[xianghua]

Well, you essentially made a claim that the mutation of a particular gene, 18 times, is impossible. So, that in and of itself is a claim that warrants some sort of justification.

I'll be waiting for the source of justification.

do you think that a self replicating molecule can evolve into a robot?