Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The fact that chimpanzees actually have ONE MORE chromosome than we humans do
chimpanzees had more DNA than we do!
Nylon is purely synthetic. Don't you get it? Most antibiotics are compounds found in nature, so we would expect them to affect bacterial evolution. Nylon is not found in nature, so before we invented it, it had no impact on bacterial evolution.
The mechanisms of resistance fall directly in what evolution is all about. Selective pressure, altered genetics and gene expression, and a phenotypic outcome that is favorable to the organism.
Oh please. Is this some other version of micro/macroevolution distinctions?
Nylon = purely synthetic.
Antibiotics = found in nature.
Do we need to go over that again?
No. humans have 1 less, due to a fusion event.
Having more chromosomes does not equate to having more DNA.
No. humans have 1 less, due to a fusion event.
Having more chromosomes does not equate to having more DNA.
Your so emotional.
I am sorry, I thought the paper mentioned that the bacteria was also resistant to some synthetic antibiotics as well? no? What you say is simple they seem to think is pretty amazing. Maybe you should give them a hand and straighten them out on the facts.
Hard wired? sounds designed not evolved.
I believe the bacteria does not eat nylon. It breaks down a nylon byproduct. One that is very similar to a protein it was already able to breakdown. The capability to do this is the result of loss of specificity, not increased specificity.
Nylon was created to replace silk and was modeled I believe after known protein structures. It was no a great leap for the bacteria to perform this feat. It is thought to have been a one step mutation. I also believe its consumption efficiency dropped to 1/50th its previous ability. Not exactly a poster child for increased complexity and novelty.
"If humans and chimpanzees are over 98% identical base-for-base, how do you make sense of the fact that chimpanzees have 10% more DNA than humans? That they have more alpha-hemoglobin genes and more Rh bloodgroup genes, and fewer Alu repeats, in their genome than humans? Or that the tips of their chromosomes contain DNA not present at the tips of human chromosomes? Obviously there is a lot more to genomics than just nucleotide substitution. But the percentage comparison renders that fact invisible, and thus obscures some of the most interesting genetic questions."
If genes transferred horizontally are later inherited, how can you claim it has nothing to do with inherited traits? True, it does make determing inheritance difficult at the base of the tree.... so what? That's just reality. Are you now claiming the "tree is dead" because of this?
Because, some of the genes were not due to selection/mutation. The heart of your hypothesis.
Evolutionists don't stop at hgt with bacteria at the base. There is lots of talk about virus to human transfer. Face it, the tree is a mess that no one can make sense of without seriously complex and complicated ad hoc explanations.
Post 629. We have mostly discussed whales, but there are plenty of others. The reptile-mammal transition is particularly well preserved, including species showing the transition from reptile jaw joint to mammalian jaw joint.
CC215: Reptile-mammal transition
Jaws to ears in the ancestors of mammals
Oh, I see your a T.O. groupie. The only reason those examples are transitions is because someone who believes they are said so. AND, with all the species being discovered today, how do they know what they are looking at are not just other species? They Don't. Its a big guess.
Did I mention, T.O. is famous for cite bluffing?
It gives us a tool to measure the time between divergences.
Molecular clock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Molecular clocks? This is an hypothesis of questionable validity. It uses fossil evidence for calibration. Fossil evidence which some evolutionist determines to be relevant. It is not independent of fossil bias and of course is going to be friendly to common descent. It is programmed to find it.
You posted several papers showing the phylogenetic tree is dead? Post# please.
- "All molecular clock studies rely on calibrations to establish evolutionary rates throughout the phylogenetic tree. Fossils are the most common calibrations, and they are widely accepted as being underestimates of the true divergence time between two lineages. However, if fossils are gross underestimates, they can substantially miscalculate divergence times and lead to misinterpretations of evolutionary history. Therefore, it is desirable to have robust calibrations for estimating divergence times" (Hedges et al. 1996; Hedges and Kumar 2004).
Darwin's tree collapsing, 64, 65,101,321,462,
The only "dismal" aspect was your use of Falsehoods like:
1. Ambulocetus was a crocodile.
2. Gingerich claimed Rodhocetus couldn't swim.
1.Again, misleading the public. I did not say Ambu wa a croc, I quoted wikipedia "Having the appearance of a 3 meter (10-foot) long mammalian crocodile"
2.Again, as I posted the video so there would be no confusion, even to the extent to post the time stamp where he said Rodho was not a power swimmer, no fluke tail, no spread out hands. Can't everything swim? Point was his faking the drawings to suit himself.
WHALE EVOLUTION - WHY THE DECEPTION ? - YouTube
Please use I.D. to explain the fact that these early whales (including Basilosaurus and Durodon) had four legs.
What? why? who says their whales? Their not, nothing to explain.
He have more than "a couple." Give me ONE for I.D.
Even under stabilizing selection for some traits, others are changing. They may change in a cyclic fashion, or in small ways, but populations are always changing. This expalins why nature does not produce "species," as I have explained more than once to you. Now, please use I.D. to explain why populations undergo such variation.
"Stabilizing selection"..Sorry, find it hard to type while laughing. Talk about problems defining ID? Evo can't even define a species. Populations undergo variation due to evolution.
So, logic is OK, but I shouldn't use logic to prove my position??? I guess that makes sense for you, since you don't use any logic in your arguments. Sorry, but I will continue using logic.
OK then.
You were given some examples earlier by another poster. But I will repeat some here:
Cichlid evolution in Lake Victoria, all within 12,000 years
The Evolution of Cichlids
OK, Can't argue with that much certainty.
- "For some reason speciation seems to occur in bouts and not steadily over time. During times of explosive speciation, a second specialisation developed"
http://www.eawag.ch/lehre/schools/f...ecture/Kocher2004_Nature_Reviews_Genetics.pdf
BMC Evolutionary Biology | Full text | Rapid speciation in a newly opened postglacial marine environment, the Baltic Sea
Rapid speciation « Science Notes
OH!, more "rapid no evidence to support it hypothesis" Speciation isn't common descent. As much as you want it to be, sorry.
I asked you several times now to show us your calculations determining the minimum times required for any evolutionary event. Where are they???
Go ask a Populations Geneticist. Your argument is with them. By the way, that is an evolutionary concept, not ID and surprise, surprise, it doesn't line up with the other evidence that doesn't line up with anything.
You want a list of observed speciations?
Here:
Observed Speciation - Originally posted by Lucaspa
Wow, your a tuff room! The original post of this thread has been reorganized.
Are you saying you believe we came from chimps?
Okay! For the humpteen-eleventh time.
Creationists say that is what science says. Science does not say that. The actual scientific literature says that chimps and humans have a common ancestor.
Is it really that hard to grasp the difference? Actually it is when one relies on literature that is dedicated to misrepresentation of the scientific literature rather than the actual scientific literature itself.
Humans and apes are genetically very similar
Ok sorry to jump in but...
So far I've only seen posts trying to disprove evolution...
I still haven't seen anything to support intelligent design.
You know that even if you disproved evolution you still have to prove ID right? It's not right by default.
You are lifting those goalposts with your legs, right? Because as much as you are shifting them, lifting with your back could really lead to a bad injury.Your logic is flawed. You are relating two different issues.
I don't think you have read the OP.
ID doesn't have to be right for common descent hypothesis to be wrong.
right now the hadron collider is being used to find a mathematical particle. Scientists have believed in the Higgs for over 40 years. If they don't find it this time, they will know they are wrong and will have to start all over again with a new model of the universe. There isn't one yet, but they still may be wrong. Considering the Atlas detector was about a billion dollars to build, and much of that was taxpayer money, then there are the 37 nations, and millions involved with the whole hadron project I think it is important to define what directions in science may be right or wrong. Between time stamps 14:15 and 17:15 we see this.
World Leaders Forum: Searching for the Higgs Particle _Panel - YouTube
Evolution can certainly be wrong in regard to common ancestry, as the evidence shows, or doesn't, without having to prove something else right.
Requiring ID to prove it is right in order to disprove common descent is a poor argument.
You are lifting those goalposts with your legs, right? Because as much as you are shifting them, lifting with your back could really lead to a bad injury.
Evolution can certainly be wrong in regard to common ancestry, as the evidence shows, or doesn't, without having to prove something else right.
Requiring ID to prove it is right in order to disprove common descent is a poor argument.
So there is a difference between TE and ID? Some consider them the same.Ok sorry to jump in but...
So far I've only seen posts trying to disprove evolution...
I still haven't seen anything to support intelligent design.
You know that even if you disproved evolution you still have to prove ID right? It's not right by default.
Actually I remember James Watson saying it is when your on the front cover of a magazine that all the girls start to get interested in you. He still got fired for saying all the wrong things. Nobel Prize or not. "James Watson, who once said re eugenics: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would be great."Ok so you have proof that evolution by common descent is wrong? well tell me about it after you receive your Nobel prize, ok?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?