Facts for evolutionists

Chalnoth · Aug 31, 2008

RTooty said:
Explain this:
pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=345072&pageindex=1#page

Abstract says that the ability to process nylon is a "variation of the pre-existing theme." This seems to me that biological processing of nylon something like different skin colors in humans.

Yes, this is how mutation works. It takes existing genetic code, randomly scrambles it, and sometimes produces something useful out of the jumble. That's exactly what happened here: bacteria that could not digest nylon were put in an environment where they were forced to: nylon was the only plentiful nutrient. And so they evolved an enzyme, made from some previous DNA that had been modified by a few mutations, and started to digest the nylon.

At first, of course, this digestion was very, very inefficient. Later it became more effective. But in any case we have the development of something new that did not exist before: an enzyme that can digest nylon.

This is one of the cornerstones of evolution, the development of a new molecule suited to a new task. It is a mechanism that is repeated over and over again in evolution. And it doesn't just happen at the molecular level, either. New structures at all levels of biology are generated by random mutation, and, if useful, amplified through natural selection. Here we have an example of a species of lizard evolving valves in its digestive tract to better digest plant matter:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

Chalnoth · Aug 31, 2008

RTooty said:
The bottom line. Life can not be explained by evolution. Even if I were to accept that we evolved from less species (which we are still looking for the missing link, you'd think after all these years of digging we'd find one example) it doesn't even explain how life began.

Evolution makes no judgement on species being "lesser" or "greater" than others. Species are merely different.

What evolution explains is not the origins of life itself. What it explains is how life changes through time. What it explains is how life diversifies, how one species becomes many through time. It explains why we have birds that vary from the ostrich to the seagull to the osprey to the pigeon to the kiwi. It explains why we have reptiles that vary from snakes to tortoises to sea turtles to crocodiles. It explains why mammals vary from mice to rats to pigs to whales to humans.

If you want to understand what we know of the origins of life, you have to look at the study of abiogenesis. It's a fascinating field, and we have learned quite a lot about some of the ways in which life could have begun. We don't yet know precisely which way it happened, but the work is ongoing. Yes, the fact remains that simply mutation and natural selection cannot explain the origins of life, because it already assumes replication. Abiogenesis attempts to explain how that self replication first came about, and we're making definite progress on this front. One of the most exciting discoveries is that it seems that life is positively easy to form given the right conditions. The mechanisms are just so simple, and arise out of basic chemistry.

OutsideNormal · Aug 31, 2008

RTooty said:
Mutation does not support evolution. A butterfly is an example of mutation but at the end of the cycle it is still... a butterfly. After hundreds of years of observation of butterflies they are still butterflies, flies are flies, and there are still the same number of finch species in the Gallipolis today as when they were discovered.

No, butterflies to not mutate. They undergo a well known process that is called metamorphosis. That is that the organism goes through distinct life stages in which its structure changes, many insects do so. You should have learned about this in grade school. Since you do not have even a grade school level of understanding about biology, you really have no basis to say anything about science.

Vene · Aug 31, 2008

RTooty said:
You said that you said that "DNA is responsible for the creation of a protein based on the order of the nucleotides." Then you said that only "1.5% of our genome is responsible for the formation of protiens." What exactly do the rest of the 98.5% do? Also, what exactly do you define evolution as, as in the progression of species (ape, ape/man, man), adaptation of species (like the nylon eating bacteria), or the whole Big Bang/primordial ooze/man rises from the sea story?

The other 98.5% of our DNA are responsible for turning on and off various genes (link). This is still a very small amount of the genome. Most of it just doesn't do anything and is complete nonsense. But, some of that nonsense can tell us about our evolutionary past. For example, we (along with every other great ape) have the genetic remnants of the gene that allows for the synthesis of vitamin C (link). In that massive amount of non-coding DNA endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) have been found (link). When a retrovirus (virus without DNA) it inserts its RNA into the nucleus, uses the cell's own mechanisms to copy it into the DNA (via reverse transcription) and now the host cell will make new viruses.
This diagram shows the mechanism (link):

Since genetic replication isn't perfect, it is possible for the gene to mutate. This destroys the gene and makes it complete garbage and is an ERV. Now, when a retorvirus infects a somatic cell, it's pretty meaningless and dies with the individual. But, when a germ cell (sperm or ova) is infected by an ERV the dead gene can be passed on to a new generation. The presence of the same ERV can tell us which organisms have common ancestry. Now, before you say that two organisms could be infected by the same virus, there's a bit more I have to add. The insertion point is completely random. And from my previous post I showed that there are ~3,000,000,000 bases in the human genome. That is ~3,000,000,000 possible locations for the virus to insert its gene. And there have been several ERVs that are shared between humans and other apes. This can be used to make ancestral trees, like one below (link):

If you're interested, this video does a good job explaining ERVs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI

And I define evolution like any biologist. It is the change of allele frequencies over successive generations that leads to descent with modification. One of the consequences is that all life has common ancestry, but evolutionary theory says nothing about how life came to be. That is abiogenesis.

Regarding the list of beneficial mutations, I still believe that these mutations are limited. At the end of time, dogs will still be dogs and cats will still be cats unless some crazy guy decides to try to make some sort of chimera.

Give me the mechanism that limits genetic change. I already gave you the mechanisms that change genomes and how it can bring about a huge amount of variation. By the way, evolutionary theory does state that "dogs will still be dogs and cats will still be cats," but it goes a bit further. Eukaryotes will still be eukaryotes (we are eukaryotes, so are bdelloid rotifers), animals will still be animals (we are animals, so are jellyfish), chordates will still be chordates (we are chordates, so are frogs), mammals will still be mammals (we are mammals, so are cows), primates will still be primates (we are primates, so are lemurs), apes will still be apes (we are apes, so are gorillas), and hominids will still be hominids (we are hominids, so were neanderthals). That is why evolution is descent with modification, anything new will still fall into previous classifications. Animals appeared
610 million years ago (link) and have only grown to be more varied since then, but all descents are still animals and will always be animals.

I did some of the reading on speciation and still found that whatever mutations and adaptations occured, they still remained the same basic organism as in a population of flies has yet to be seen to evolve into a population of birds. This still leaves the question of the origin of life which has yet to be explained by evolution (all life, not just terrestrial life).

Wrong field, you want abiogenesis for that, if you want to discuss abiogenesis feel free to start a new topic. And flies will never evolve into birds, see above for why.

CACTUSJACKmankin · Aug 31, 2008

RTooty said:
Explain this:
pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=345072&pageindex=1#page

Abstract says that the ability to process nylon is a "variation of the pre-existing theme." This seems to me that biological processing of nylon something like different skin colors in humans.

Thats what evolution does. it is decent with modification. evolution seldom produces anything entirely novel. a wing is a modified arm, venom glands are modified salivary glands, mammary glands are modified sweat glands, lungs can trace their origin from fish swim bladders.

TheGnome · Aug 31, 2008

I recommend you read Fundamentals of Molecular Evolution by Dan Graur and Wen-Hsiung Li

Split Rock · Aug 31, 2008

RTooty said:
Regarding the list of beneficial mutations, I still believe that these mutations are limited. At the end of time, dogs will still be dogs and cats will still be cats unless some crazy guy decides to try to make some sort of chimera.

Just as humans are still apes and primates and mammals and vertebrates, etc. You cannot escape from your ancestry. Indeed, if we did find a chimera, it would be evidence against evolution. Were you under the impression that evolution is supposed to produce chimeras?

RTooty said:
I did some of the reading on speciation and still found that whatever mutations and adaptations occured, they still remained the same basic organism as in a population of flies has yet to be seen to evolve into a population of birds. This still leaves the question of the origin of life which has yet to be explained by evolution (all life, not just terrestrial life).

Again, you cannot escape your ancestry. We are still eukaryotes, just as all the other species that are descendents of the earliest eukaryote, hundreds of millions of years ago. Also, I will repeat that evolution does not explain the origin of life and makes no attempt to do so.

Are you getting any of this down yet? Will you stop trying to tear down your strawman version of evolution now?

RTooty · Aug 31, 2008

HammOnWry said:
Evolutionary biologists argue from evidence. You seem to be arguing from personal incredulity. Guess which one trumps the other?

Again, what are these 'evolutionists' that you keep refering to? They almost seem like a perverse caricature of real evolutionary biology.

Tell me something: What is your definition of evolution?

In reference to Creationism v Evolution, I define evolution to include all it's periferal theories let it be Big Bag or Extra Terrestrial Intelligence. The term Creationism v. Evolution itself is a misnomer since apparently Creationism discusses the origin of life and Evolution discusses the changes life has made since is arrival, whenever you may believe that may have occured. If you want a functional definiton for evolution in its barest sense it would mean change. It could be genetic, phenotypal, social, behavioral, fashion. Whatever. Evolution to me in is most basic is change.

You say you're not an evolutionist but you defend it. What would you classify yourself as? For that matter, how do you see life as having come about and how do you account for the wide variety of animal families and genuses (not species)? Do you not believe in the common amoeba ancestor like many others?

RTooty · Aug 31, 2008

Vene said:
Give me the mechanism that limits genetic change. I already gave you the mechanisms that change genomes and how it can bring about a huge amount of variation. By the way, evolutionary theory does state that "dogs will still be dogs and cats will still be cats," but it goes a bit further. Eukaryotes will still be eukaryotes (we are eukaryotes, so are bdelloid rotifers), animals will still be animals (we are animals, so are jellyfish), chordates will still be chordates (we are chordates, so are frogs), mammals will still be mammals (we are mammals, so are cows), primates will still be primates (we are primates, so are lemurs), apes will still be apes (we are apes, so are gorillas), and hominids will still be hominids (we are hominids, so were neanderthals). That is why evolution is descent with modification, anything new will still fall into previous classifications. Animals appeared
610 million years ago and have only grown to be more varied since then, but all descents are still animals and will always be animals.

Wrong field, you want abiogenesis for that, if you want to discuss abiogenesis feel free to start a new topic. And flies will never evolve into birds, see above for why.

You ask for me to provide the mechanisms that limits evolutionary change. I have yet to find one. You do also state the idea that you were questioning, namely that animals will remain in the same class as they were before, dogs to dogs, et. al. Then you links posts that say there are no barriers. It's terribly confusing.

To clear up some things, I believe God made Earth in 7 "Days". In the Bible there is a verse saying that a day to God is like a thousand years for us (or 10 thousand it's been a while) but I really don't care how long it took. I'm happy to just be here. What I think is interesting is that the series of events in the Bible (light, water, earth, fish, animals, sentience) for the days is exactly the same sequence I was shown as the evolutionary explanation for the arrival of the unvierse according to at least Big Bang theory. I believe that when God made the universe he made it as a mature universe. After all the animals and Adam and Eve in the Bible were assumedly created in their mature state so why wouldn't God make the universe in a mature state with dying stars and and light from millions of years away already arriving at earth.

I have a theory that whatever the fruit of life is, it contained an enzyme or protien or something that we humans cannot make that would provide a means to immortality. I hear somewhere that they found research that each time a cell replicated, a little bit of the trash at the end of the strand is chipped off and this theoretically is what causes aging. I heard this on NPR so I don't have a link to that research. In theory this inhuman element provided by the fruit of life possibly activated this some of the trash genes that we haven't found a function for. All this is belief with no proof. There is evidence for the Biblical story, but no proof.

Cabal · Aug 31, 2008

RTooty said:
To clear up some things, I believe God made Earth in 7 "Days". In the Bible there is a verse saying that a day to God is like a thousand years for us (or 10 thousand it's been a while) but I really don't care how long it took. I'm happy to just be here.

If you really don't care that much, then why are you defending it so vehemently (and frankly, compared to the number of times we have someone drop in thinking they can singlehandedly take down ToE, you're not doing a great job either. Just sayin'.)

Vene · Aug 31, 2008

RTooty said:
You ask for me to provide the mechanisms that limits evolutionary change. I have yet to find one. You do also state the idea that you were questioning, namely that animals will remain in the same class as they were before, dogs to dogs, et. al. Then you links posts that say there are no barriers. It's terribly confusing.

It would be because you don't understand what the theory actually states. I am not arguing your creationist strawman. I am arguing the biological theory of evolution, and I am limiting myself to it. The universe is subtle, distinctions between words are very important when dealing with science. And I am not afraid to discuss the details. I'm also wondering if you think the classification system describes actual barriers. It doesn't, only at the species level is there any barrier. Genus, family, order, etc are human-made distinctions. I have provided examples of new species coming into being, without a mechanism there is no reason to think they can't change further. Especially in light of the fossil record which shows the origin of each family, genus, etc.

To clear up some things, I believe God made Earth in 7 "Days". In the Bible there is a verse saying that a day to God is like a thousand years for us (or 10 thousand it's been a while) but I really don't care how long it took. I'm happy to just be here. What I think is interesting is that the series of events in the Bible (light, water, earth, fish, animals, sentience) for the days is exactly the same sequence I was shown as the evolutionary explanation for the arrival of the unvierse according to at least Big Bang theory.

Not really. I assume you are talking about Genesis 1, not 2 (the order of events is different in each). The Bible speaks of fruit-bearing plants and trees appearing before any animals. This is false. Fruit evolved from flowering plants and they appeared 425 million years ago (link). The first animals appeared in the fossil record 610 million years ago (link).

I actually wonder why Genesis is so important to modern Christianity. The Jews know it's nowhere near literal. They understand it's poetic. I would think they should know, because their ancestors wrote the book.

I believe that when God made the universe he made it as a mature universe. After all the animals and Adam and Eve in the Bible were assumedly created in their mature state so why wouldn't God make the universe in a mature state with dying stars and and light from millions of years away already arriving at earth.

So he's a deciever? Why would you worship a god that plants false evidence? And why would he bother to make radiometric dating, calculations based on the speed of light, and even the seismic waves of the sun (link) confirm an old universe? Why would an honest being place so much deception into his creation?

I have a theory that whatever the fruit of life is, it contained an enzyme or protien or something that we humans cannot make that would provide a means to immortality. I hear somewhere that they found research that each time a cell replicated, a little bit of the trash at the end of the strand is chipped off and this theoretically is what causes aging.

Immortal cells have been found. They are cancer cells. It's actually the addition of proteins that cause mortality (one that I can think of is cytochrome C, as it is necessary for apoptosis or cellular death (link)).

I heard this on NPR so I don't have a link to that research. In theory this inhuman element provided by the fruit of life possibly activated this some of the trash genes that we haven't found a function for. All this is belief with no proof. There is evidence for the Biblical story, but no proof.

Present your evidence for the Biblical story, it doesn't fit with observed reality. Even the things you seem to think fit, don't.

MasterOfKrikkit · Aug 31, 2008

RTooty said:
You ask for me to provide the mechanisms that limits evolutionary change. I have yet to find one. You do also state the idea that you were questioning, namely that animals will remain in the same class as they were before, dogs to dogs, et. al. Then you links posts that say there are no barriers. It's terribly confusing.

Not really. There are various analogies that work here to illustrate that these "limits" of yours -- which, I note, we're expected to believe exist even though you admit you can't demonstrate their mechanism (or, for that matter, provide any form of evidence for) -- are nothing more than a logical fallacy known as the continuum fallacy or the fallacy of the beard (heap, etc):

Line up every man on earth according to some criterion -- height, weight, amount of facial hair, amount of head hair, etc. (Just pick one that you like.) There is a clear ordering: given two men, one can be measured to have more or less height/weight/hair. Now that you have them in order, surely you would agree that the man on one end of the line is short/light/bald while the man on the other end is tall/heavy/hairy? OK... now, point to the position in the line where bald becomes hairy, where tall becomes short. Not so easy is it? Over the entire progression, short clearly becomes tall, but the men to my left and right won't look noticeably hairier than I.

(Or think of a strip of color going from red, through purple, to blue. Find a pixel that everyone will agree is red but with a neighboring pixel that everyone will agree is not. Or how many stones make a "pile"? Or how many seconds old do I have to be before I am responsible for my own actions? Or...etc...)

Similarly, dogs begat dogs. But the begotten dog is a little different to the begetting dog. Ten dogs later, there's still not a major difference, but what about 1000 dogs? 1 million? 479.2 billion? Eventually we get something we would no longer consider a dog.

If you keep adding hairs to a bald man, eventually you have a non-bald man. If you keep mutating dogs, eventually you have a non-dog.

Got it?

exactly the same sequence I was shown as the evolutionary explanation for the arrival of the unvierse according to at least Big Bang theory.

Big Bang =/= evolution. The BB is cosmology, that's it. The expansion of space from a singularity. Not evolution.

I believe that when God made the universe he made it as a mature universe.

Any beliefs, then, on why it doesn't look that way?

After all the animals and Adam and Eve in the Bible were assumedly created in their mature state so why wouldn't God make the universe in a mature state with dying stars and and light from millions of years away already arriving at earth.

If one bit of Genesis 1 is literal then why isn't it all? Is that what you're asking? If so... why?

There is evidence for the Biblical story, but no proof.

Really? Fantastic! PLEASE present it! We've been begging for this evidence to no avail. Please let's us hear it. Seriously. I really want to know.

MasterOfKrikkit · Aug 31, 2008

Vene said:
I actually wonder why Genesis is so important to modern Christianity. The Jews know it's nowhere near literal. They understand it's poetic. I would think they should know, because their ancestors wrote the book.

QFT. If I was Jewish, I think I'd be ... terribly vexed ... by a bunch of loudmouthed heretical n00bs telling me how to read my own books.

Chalnoth · Aug 31, 2008

RTooty said:
In reference to Creationism v Evolution, I define evolution to include all it's periferal theories let it be Big Bag or Extra Terrestrial Intelligence. The term Creationism v. Evolution itself is a misnomer since apparently Creationism discusses the origin of life and Evolution discusses the changes life has made since is arrival, whenever you may believe that may have occured.

Quite right. Evolution is the wrong word. A more accurate characterization of "Creationism vs. Evolution" is "Creationism vs. Science". Creationists just don't like to paint it in those terms because they like to claim that science is good, all the while attempting to undermine it at every turn. It's quite hypocritical.

RTooty said:
If you want a functional definiton for evolution in its barest sense it would mean change. It could be genetic, phenotypal, social, behavioral, fashion. Whatever. Evolution to me in is most basic is change.

True, but the Theory of Evolution is specifically a description of how living organisms change, not anything else.

RTooty said:
You say you're not an evolutionist but you defend it. What would you classify yourself as?

Not directed at me, but I would classify myself as a scientist. Specifically, a cosmologist. That's my job. The Theory of Evolution is merely one of many strongly-evidenced scientific theories, and it would be silly to identify with it, except if I were a scientist studying evolution. Which I'm not.

RTooty said:
For that matter, how do you see life as having come about and how do you account for the wide variety of animal families and genuses (not species)?

Two different questions. For the first, look up the RNA world hypothesis. This currently seems the most likely description of abiogenesis. For the second, evolution answers that quite handily.

RTooty said:
Do you not believe in the common amoeba ancestor like many others?

An amoeba is a eukaryote. We are eukaryotes. We therefore share common ancestors with amoebas. Now, we can't say that this ancestor was an amoeba. It may have been, but it certainly wasn't a modern amoeba. This common ancestor would have lived, if I recall correctly, somewhere around 500-600 million years ago. There were many other single-celled forms of life around for more than 3 billion years prior. Eukaryotes, like amoebas and ourselves, are a relatively late evolution.

Chalnoth · Aug 31, 2008

MasterOfKrikkit said:
QFT. If I was Jewish, I think I'd be ... terribly vexed ... by a bunch of loudmouthed heretical n00bs telling me how to read my own books.

No need to wonder...here's Lewis Black on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g
Edit: The above video contains some foul language.

astroweezer · Aug 31, 2008

RTooty said:
Fact: Modern scientific method grew in a religious context. Wiki "Tabula Rasa" and look for the guy who started the idea. You will find he was a religious scholar and scientist (he was also muslim). Several of the more contemporary founders of the scientific method (Bacon and Berkerly particularly).

Fact: Natural Selection =/= Evolution, IF Evolution = Random Mutations OR Evolution = Macroevolution (macroevolution being change from species to species) OR Evolution = Beginning of Life. Natural selection is scienficially verifiable. Microevolution (change within species) is scientifically verifiable. Macroevolution is not scientifically verifiable because no one can ever empirically shown one species turning into another one. Evidence such as the fossil record merely shows that such organisms existed, not necessarily that they grew out of each other.

Fact: No one has ever shown a beneficial mutation involving the creation of a new biological process or structure such as a man who can eat rocks to survive (lithovorism as ridiculous as it sounds). You can find mutations that remove DNA, swap DNA, change an organ's size, shape, color, and function but none of these mutations have been proven to be beneficial. In a previous discussion there was a debate that there was a rare mutation that has been found in the human genome that makes a human immune to some diseases. In fact this mutation removed a certain part of the cell or cell function (I can't remember). This is like saying people who have had their legs amputated are better of than those who have their legs because they are immune to athlete's foot. Please note that this mutation was discovered but the discoverers did not document the change meaning that this "mutation" could have existed all along and was just selectively passed down or dormant in some people. And again, this is not the creation of a new beneficial genetic sequence but removal of a damaging one. Let me remind you, that the most common human mutation is CANCER.

Regarding your "facts" -->

Also, did this post make anyone think of the episode of the Office where Jim dresses up like Dwight?

Fact: Bears eat beets......Bears...beets...Battlestar Galactica.

Good stuff!

DJ_Ghost · Aug 31, 2008

RTooty said:
Fact: Modern scientific method grew in a religious context.

RTooty said:

This is hardly news. I could truly bore you with an in-depth discussion of how the religious sponsorship of early science lead to science taking on a particular model in preference to the early Gasendain model that it could have taken on, but I don’t think you would be terribly interested. I’m not certain what point you are trying to make by pointing out that science grew out of a religious context, I’m also not certain why you felt this would be a revelation to most of us.

I think it is important to mention here, that the scientific method has been refined greatly since its early days, you might like to look up Karl Popper to see some of the major developments in the method itself.

RTooty said:

Fact: Natural Selection =/= Evolution, IF Evolution = Random Mutations OR Evolution = Macroevolution (macroevolution being change from species to species) OR Evolution = Beginning of Life. Natural selection is scienficially verifiable. Microevolution (change within species) is scientifically verifiable. Macroevolution is not scientifically verifiable because no one can ever empirically shown one species turning into another one.

Click to expand...

Well, others have already pointed out the long list of speciation events first posted here by Lucuspa (A Christian, by the way), so I shan’t cover that ground again. Instead I will point out that modern science is falsificationist rather than verificationist.

Think about what we do in forensic and criminal science. We reconstruct past events that we did not witness by examining the evidence they left behind. In order to do this we subject all possible explinations for the data to falsificationism, that is, we look for those things that would be impossible if the theory was correct. When we find these things, we can rule out that explanation, until only one possible explanation remains. This is how all modern science proceeds, and how we test evolution.

Verificationist methodologies were found wanting, because one piece of evidence may have several plausible explanations, if you only look for evidence that supports it, you can overlook evidence which falsifies it. This is why the method was refined so that we now seek both.

RTooty said:

Evidence such as the fossil record merely shows that such organisms existed, not necessarily that they grew out of each other.

Click to expand...

However, the fossil record is only a small piece of the puzzle. True it is the piece that creationists most commonly fasten onto, presumably because it is the most easily excisable. However, twin nested hierarchies and ERVS all point to the same conclusion.

RTooty said:

Fact: No one has ever shown a beneficial mutation involving the creation of a new biological process or structure

RTooty said:

Fact, yes they have, as other posters have already pointed out. I myself have one, I have an above the usual human range olfactory sense. That is to say, due to a small mutation in my DNA I have a sense of smell that is far more acute than humans usually have.

I am curious why you would think that mutations can’t be beneficial?

RTooty said:

In a previous discussion there was a debate that there was a rare mutation that has been found in the human genome that makes a human immune to some diseases. In fact this mutation removed a certain part of the cell or cell function (I can't remember). .

Click to expand...

I think you are referring to cycle cell anaemia, which confers an immunity to malaria. This is an example of a mutation which is both advantageous and disadvantageous. Prior to the development of certain medicines and medical practices, malaria tended to kill a vast number of infants long before they reached the age at which they could reproduce. The immunity to malaria was, therefore an advantage, on balance, because it increased the likelihood of surviving to sexual maturity.

RTooty said:

Let me remind you, that the most common human mutation is CANCER

Click to expand...

Actually, it isn’t, but Vene has already addressed this point.

RTooty said:

Regarding the list of beneficial mutations, I still believe that these mutations are limited. At the end of time, dogs will still be dogs and cats will still be cats unless some crazy guy decides to try to make some sort of chimera.

Click to expand...

Yet dogs used to be wolves, and there are an awful lot more species of dog now than there used to be.

RTooty said:

This still leaves the question of the origin of life which has yet to be explained by evolution (all life, not just terrestrial life).

Click to expand...

Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, evolution explains the diversity of life. Abiogenesis explains the origin of life.

RTooty said:

In reference to Creationism v Evolution, I define evolution to include all it's periferal theories let it be Big Bag or Extra Terrestrial Intelligence.

Click to expand...

These are not peripheral theories to evolution, anymore than the theory of gravity is, they are entirely separate theories, which deal with different areas of nature.

RTooty said:

If you want a functional definiton for evolution in its barest sense it would mean change.

Click to expand...

Actually the correct definition of the theory of evolution is “The change in allele frequencies from one generation to the next” If we are going to debate a theory, we can’t just make up what we think it should be, we have to be constrained by what the theory actually is.

Ghost

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Blayz · Aug 31, 2008

Rtooty, I understand you have no interest in the truth, mired as you are in lies and fabrications in a topic that you know absolutely nothing about, but just for the record

I hear somewhere that they found research that each time a cell replicated, a little bit of the trash at the end of the strand is chipped off and this theoretically is what causes aging.

Eukaryotic chromosmes are capped with specific sequences known as telomeres. These act just like the plasticy bits on the ends of shoelaces, preventing them from fraying.

During differential division, the telomeres shorten, and the cell uses this as a means to control cell replication and also mark its period of senescence.

It's not trash
It's not chipped off
It's a part of, not the whole of, the aging process.

RTooty · Sep 1, 2008

Vene said:
Not really. I assume you are talking about Genesis 1, not 2 (the order of events is different in each). The Bible speaks of fruit-bearing plants and trees appearing before any animals. This is false. Fruit evolved from flowering plants and they appeared 425 million years ago. The first animals appeared in the fossil record 610 million years ago.

Since there were no land plants, were these animals carnivores for nearly 200 million years? I'm sure there is evidence of a diet.

RTooty · Sep 1, 2008

MasterOfKrikkit said:
Not really. There are various analogies that work here to illustrate that these "limits" of yours -- which, I note, we're expected to believe exist even though you admit you can't demonstrate their mechanism (or, for that matter, provide any form of evidence for) -- are nothing more than a logical fallacy known as the continuum fallacy or the fallacy of the beard (heap, etc):

Line up every man on earth according to some criterion -- height, weight, amount of facial hair, amount of head hair, etc. (Just pick one that you like.) There is a clear ordering: given two men, one can be measured to have more or less height/weight/hair. Now that you have them in order, surely you would agree that the man on one end of the line is short/light/bald while the man on the other end is tall/heavy/hairy? OK... now, point to the position in the line where bald becomes hairy, where tall becomes short. Not so easy is it? Over the entire progression, short clearly becomes tall, but the men to my left and right won't look noticeably hairier than I.

(Or think of a strip of color going from red, through purple, to blue. Find a pixel that everyone will agree is red but with a neighboring pixel that everyone will agree is not. Or how many stones make a "pile"? Or how many seconds old do I have to be before I am responsible for my own actions? Or...etc...)

Similarly, dogs begat dogs. But the begotten dog is a little different to the begetting dog. Ten dogs later, there's still not a major difference, but what about 1000 dogs? 1 million? 479.2 billion? Eventually we get something we would no longer consider a dog.

If you keep adding hairs to a bald man, eventually you have a non-bald man. If you keep mutating dogs, eventually you have a non-dog.

I do not agree with the evolving man analogy since man has had the same appearance since the first documentation of man in the most ancient of writings and drawings. Tall, short, bald, hairy. Take away our grooming tools& posture training and everyone will look like Cavemen.

Facts for evolutionists

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Member

In memory of ChordatesLegacy

Scientist

Evil Atheist Conspiracy PR Guy

Conflation of Blathers

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

In memory of ChordatesLegacy

Regular Member

Regular Member

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Member

Trad Goth

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency