Natural selection or Virus infection

[Hawkins]

Now what? A fish is turned to a frog due to natural selection OR a fish is turned to a frog due to virus infection. They all call themselves "evolution" anyway.

Perhaps nature selected us only because we were virus-infected.

Typos corrected.

 

[Numenor]

Excellent post!!

 

[raphael_aa]

I got no idea what anyone is talking about. How does a fish turn into a fog? Is this a riddle?

 

[Ryal Kane]

I got no idea what anyone is talking about. How does a fish turn into a fog? Is this a riddle?

I think he meant frog but misspelt it twice. It happens.

 

[Dennis Moore]

I think he meant frog but misspelt it twice.

Unfortunately, it does little to improve the coherence or context of the OP. It seems like it's either responding to some post somewhere here on CF, or to some article/report somewhere, but the newbie obviously doesn't know basic messageboard netiquette.

Hawkins, what are you talking about / referring to / responding to?

 

[mikeynov]

Now what? A fish is turned to a fog due to natural selection OR a fish is turned to a fog due to virus infection. They all call themselves "evolution" anyway.

Perhaps nature selected us only because we were virus-infected.

Wow. Normally, it takes years before Evilutionists™ will take you into their inner circle and teach you about the 9th level of Evolution - Wizardry! How did you discover this information???

 

[Hawkins]

Unfortunately, it does little to improve the coherence or context of the OP. It seems like it's either responding to some post somewhere here on CF, or to some article/report somewhere, but the newbie obviously doesn't know basic messageboard netiquette.

Hawkins, what are you talking about / referring to / responding to?

I am a newbie who didn't know that a typo may cause so much trouble here.

 

[Dennis Moore]

I am a newbie who didn't know that a typo may cause so much trouble here.

I wasn't picking on the typo. Replace "fog" with "frog," and there's still no context for your statement. Where is it being said that a virus turned a fish into a frog?

 

[JohnR7]

A fish is turned to a frog due to natural selection OR a fish is turned to a frog due to virus infection.

That is one of the theorys is that virus adds information to the DNA but there is just no evidence to back up that theory. So they are stuck with the mutations theory untill something better comes along. Natural selection is not enough to change a fish into a frog, you have to do something to add information to the DNA.

 

[Manic Depressive Mouse]

you have to do something to add information to the DNA.

What do you mean by this?

Add more base pairs?

Make proteins more complex?

Change phenotype?

Mutations do all these things.

 

[mikeynov]

That is one of the theorys is that virus adds information to the DNA but there is just no evidence to back up that theory. So they are stuck with the mutations theory untill something better comes along. Natural selection is not enough to change a fish into a frog, you have to do something to add information to the DNA.

Natural selection steers, mutation provides the raw material.

How hard is that to understand? :\

 

[Hawkins]

Natural selection steers, mutation provides the raw material.

How hard is that to understand? :\

When your DNA/chromosom is changed, you are already what you are, what else do you need to steer? It's biochemical change, you mean that needs "nature" to be a catalyst?

 

[JohnR7]

How hard is that to understand? :\

Easy to understand, difficult to believe, harder to prove.

(What they offer for evidence is a sham.)

 

[Lucretius]

When your DNA/chromosom is changed, you are already what you are, what else do you need to steer? It's biochemical change, you mean that needs "nature" to be a catalyst?

Here it is plain and simple: Individuals mutate, populations evolve.

Let's say one dog gets a mutation giving it no eyes, while the other dog gets a mutation giving it stronger eyes. The dog with no eyes is less likely to reproduce because it is less likely to survive. The dog with stronger eyes is naturally selected, because it has an edge over other dogs in survival. So, the super-eyed dog population evolves. The individual dog mutated though.

Without natural selection, there would not be evolution. Without mutations there would not be evolution. Together, evolution occurs.

 

[Hawkins]

Here it is plain and simple: Individuals mutate, populations evolve.

Let's say one dog gets a mutation giving it no eyes, while the other dog gets a mutation giving it stronger eyes. The dog with no eyes is less likely to reproduce because it is less likely to survive. The dog with stronger eyes is naturally selected, because it has an edge over other dogs in survival. So, the super-eyed dog population evolves. The individual dog mutated though.

Without natural selection, there would not be evolution. Without mutations there would not be evolution. Together, evolution occurs.

You mean by chance a fish was turned to a frog and the frog survived? What's point of nature selection? It's already a frog. Gradual change is not a necessity then.

 

[Lucretius]

You mean by chance a fish was turned to a frog and the frog survived? What's point of nature selection? It's already a frog. Gradual change is not a necessity then.

Natural selection selects individuals best suited to survive in their environment. If you have a desert toad and a polar bear in Antarctica, the polar bear is going to live and the toad is going to die.

A fish did not go poof and become a frog; this claim probably roots from hearing too much of Hovind saying "A dog never produces a non-dog and we certainly never see humans pop out of rocks" It's not like a dog tries really hard and a beaver pops out, or an elephant. Gradual change accumulates over time, and when one change gets so far away from the original species that it cannot mate with it any longer, it becomes a new species.

I would suggest visiting talk.origins transitional fossils for the origin of the frog and the transitions.

 

[Hawkins]

All the fossils show that most (if not all) the species are leaping instead of gradual change.

 

[Lucretius]

All the fossils show that most (if not all) the species are leaping instead of gradual change.

The funny thing about Creationists is that they never can quantify gradual change. If something is gradual change to scientists, they say it's a great leap. You do realize that scientists do NOT expect to find fossils of everything that ever lived, don't you? You do realize that evolution takes millions of years to occur in most species in order for new ones to emerge? Apes, fish, frogs, humans, birds DO NOT evolve as fast as something small like the HIV virus, which evolves in hours or days, constantly new strains are coming out, defeating medicinal attempts to treat it.

Tell me, what do you call a gradual change?

Is this "a great leap" for you?

 

[Hawkins]

You just forgot to say that they are from the various species which may have nothing to do with each other. And you forgot to mention the difference of them other than the similarity. And you forgot to mention that why dont they just "evolve" one more pair of eyes to watch their backs. You simply link the similarity between even irrelevent species (as proved by evolutionalists themselves) and said that it's evolution, how increditable.

Finally, the retrovirus theory almost makes your natural selection theory obsolete.

 

[Lucretius]

You just forgot to say that they are from the various species which may have nothing to do with each other. And you forgot to mention the difference of them other than the similarity. And you forgot to mention that why dont they just "evolve" one more pair of eyes to watch their backs. You simply link the similarity between even irrelevent species (as proved by evolutionalists themselves) and said that it's evolution, how increditable.

Do you know how a tree works? There are branches, and more branches. I'm sorry but once again, you have no idea what you are talking about. These species are all related because they all share, what we crazy evolutionists call a common ancestor. Every single skull there is of a hominid. I guess taxonomical classification is totally worthless, though. Not to mention we share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees. These kind of relationships are obviously purely artifical though, right? Make sure your post makes sense next time.

Finally, the retrovirus theory almost makes your natural selection theory obsolete.

How? Explain to me what the "retrovirus theory" is. In your own words.