Science vs. Evolution

[interested in life]

The banana and other fruits and vegetables are great examples. So to are vaccines. Why do we need to update our vaccines every so often, especially for influenza? Because the species of virus or micro-organisms that our vaccines and antibiotics target are evolving. In point of fact, if they were not evolving, then vaccination would have effectively rendered them inept, and for certain organisms, placed them in danger of extinction.

Equivocation.again.I see 2 varieties of bananas,i see you discussing microorganisms evolving but still staying within their kind.I sat here for a billion years would i see another variety of micro organism or banana?Or would it be a completely different animal?

 

[tanzanos]

Ill make it clearer,i MOST CERTAINLY deny we came from monkeys or monkey ancestry.

you ignored my comment regarding cranial capacity and increased size doesnt correlate to increased intelligence nor did you answer about how the prefrontal cortex developed.Without soft tissue to study,we have no idea whether these monkeys were smarter.Unless you are a naturalist who really really really wants this to be true.

Agreed.

YouTube - Ken Miller on Apes and Humans

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Same to you (person who refused to click on one link i provided, or watch the video i provided).Shut your eyes to all the evidence.

That's the motto of Creationism.

 

[interested in life]

..

i got youtube thanks anyway and why cant you answer the previous questions in my post to plindboe?Would of thought you guys would be well schooled in tackling fundies like me....

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Equivocation.again.I see 2 varieties of bananas,i see you discussing microorganisms evolving but still staying within their kind.I sat here for a billion years would i see another variety of micro organism or banana?Or would it be a completely different animal?

What do you mean 'staying within their kind'? If you want to see speciation then either settle for the fossil record and comparative molecular biology and anatomy, or otherwise live for several thousand millennia and wait. Your choice. But it doesn't change my point one bit: they've clearly evolved resistance, haven't they?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Without running to google,im sure man has managed to transplant pigs organs into humans.Now we are related closely to pigs or is there another explanation?

We are phylogenetically related to pigs, yes. But to a lesser extent then monkeys and the great apes.

 

[interested in life]

What do you mean 'staying within their kind'? If you want to see speciation then either settle for the fossil record and comparative molecular biology and anatomy, or otherwise live for several thousand millennia and wait. Your choice. But it doesn't change my point one bit: they've clearly evolved resistance, haven't they?

The resistance was there to begin with,just the ones who didnt have it died off,and yet again this doesnt back up goo to you.The examples you guys use?
Show me a simple lifeform developing into something serious.

 

[interested in life]

We are phylogenetically related to pigs, yes. But to a lesser extent then monkeys and the great apes.

or....?all living things have some sort of common characteristics due to sharing the same habitat(earth).
you musta known i was gonna say that??

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Equivocation.again.

What was equivocated? :scratched:

I see 2 varieties of bananas,i see you discussing microorganisms evolving but still staying within their kind.

Well of course. That's what evolution predicts will happen. It's only Creationists who think that evolution says that giraffes become walruses, or whatever nonsense is being regurgitated around.

I sat here for a billion years would i see another variety of micro organism or banana?Or would it be a completely different animal?

Probably both. It would be a banana because it descended from a banana. But it would be utterly unlike something else that came from that same banana. That's the whole point of evolution by natural selection: one species can split into many species. We've seen this happen with our own eyeballs, and we can see it happened in the past with the mountain of evidence: the twin-nested hierarchy, ERVs, anatomical homologies, genetic homologies, the fossil record, even human experience.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The resistance was there to begin with,just the ones who didnt have it died off,and yet again this doesnt back up goo to you.The examples you guys use?
Show me a simple lifeform developing into something serious.

Show me Alexander the Great.

Oh, that's right, we don't have either time machines to go back and see it happen, nor billion-year-long-lives to watch something similar happen.

 

[sfs]

you ignored my comment regarding cranial capacity and increased size doesnt correlate to increased intelligence

Your comment was wrong. Larger cranial capacity (corrected for body size) does correlate with intelligence. Do you think it's just a coincidence that humans are highly intelligent and have very large brains for their body size?

 

[IzzyPop]

The resistance was there to begin with,just the ones who didnt have it died off,and yet again this doesnt back up goo to you.

Except that it does. Those without resistance die off and leave only those with resistance left to reproduce. Soon the entire population is resistant. Evolution in action.

The examples you guys use?
Show me a simple lifeform developing into something serious.

Define simple and serious.

 

[interested in life]

What do you mean 'staying within their kind'? If you want to see speciation then either settle for the fossil record and comparative molecular biology and anatomy, or otherwise live for several thousand millennia and wait. Your choice. But it doesn't change my point one bit: they've clearly evolved resistance, haven't they?

Kind of an ambiguous answer,either they will still be a type of banana or micro organism or they wont?What does the evidence tell you?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The resistance was there to begin with,just the ones who didnt have it died off,and yet again this doesnt back up goo to you.

Exactly. And then we developed something else. And the one's resistant to that survived and reproduced and became dominant whereas the others died off. And then we repeated the process, and the same thing happened, and so on. And now the organism (or virus) no longer resembles what it started as. Because we have constantly applied selective pressures only the one's best adapted have survived and reproduced, and new strains constantly emerge because of exactly that.

The examples you guys use?
Show me a simple lifeform developing into something serious.

I'd say avian flu is something quite serious, wouldn't you?

 

[Split Rock]

i got youtube thanks anyway and why cant you answer the previous questions in my post to plindboe?Would of thought you guys would be well schooled in tackling fundies like me....

Nice sock-puppet you have there Cassiterides. I especially like the lack of spaces between sentences, but the lower case "i" is a dead give away. Have fun trolling.

 

[interested in life]

Except that it does. Those without resistance die off and leave only those with resistance left to reproduce. Soon the entire population is resistant. Evolution in action.

I have no argument with that.

Define simple and serious.

Anything that transcends genetic boundaries.Anything.Showing me fruit or various micro organisms is just showing me variety..Of course theres tremendous variety encoded in our DNA. im living example of it,im 40 kg heavier and about 7-8 inches taller than my father.We still are both human.

 

[sfs]

The resistance was there to begin with,just the ones who didnt have it died off

No, in many cases the resistance was not there to begin with. You can take a sample of genetically identical organisms, all lacking resistance, expose them to a harmful chemical (pesticide, antibiotic, whatever), and some of them will develop resistance.

,and yet again this doesnt back up goo to you.

It shows that organisms change in important ways. That's one step in inferring common descent. It's certainly not the whole story, but it's an important step.

The examples you guys use?
Show me a simple lifeform developing into something serious.

Since changes on such a scale take much longer than a human lives, you're asking for something that is impossible, even if evolution is 100% correct. Why bother? Do you really think that, according to biologists, simple life forms should become complex in a matter of a couple of years?

The conclusion that life has evolved is based on a wide array of evidence from several branches of science, not on direct observation of the changes in real time. If you do understand the science, then your request doesn't make any sense. If you don't understand it, don't you think you should learn about the evidence before dismissing the science?

 

[plindboe]

You missed my point that some things cant be used to prove others.The fact that my children are mine, has nothing to do with the goo to zoo to you.Im not even sure how this equates?
Its a terrible comparison.

No one has said that one proves the other. The issue under debate is whether we can know things from indirect evidence. Cassiterides has been denying this, and everyone else have been correcting him.

It certainly helps when formulating a hypothesis.Saying things like monkey to man is true because we can deduce that humans have babies is bizarre reasoning.

No one has said anything like that. You're imagining things that no one has said.

Here's an analogy to the current situation:

Person A says "God doesn't exist because 2+2=3".
Person B says "2+2 doesn't equal 3, it equals 4".
You say "So 2+2=4 proves that God exists? That's bizarre reasoning".

This is essentially what you've been doing. No one is saying that the one proves the other. We're simply correcting Cassiterides' wrong assertion.

It appears you keep insulting my intelligence because i hold a view contrary to yours.I dont mind,but it makes for poor dialogue.

I haven't insulted your intelligence. You don't appear to understand the point tanzanos made or know what the debate was about. That's an observation based on what you've said, not an insult.

Ill make it clearer,i MOST CERTAINLY deny we came from monkeys or monkey ancestry.

Ok.

you ignored my comment regarding cranial capacity and increased size doesnt correlate to increased intelligence

I ignored it because I didn't see the relevance. The diagram was about a certain morphological change over time, and talking about intelligence doesn't address the issue.

nor did you answer about how the prefrontal cortex developed.

Yes I did. I answered "Dunno". Like it or not, but sometimes that's the best answer there is.

Peter

 

[IzzyPop]

I have no argument with that.

Anything that transcends genetic boundaries.Anything.Showing me fruit or various micro organisms is just showing me variety..Of course theres tremendous variety encoded in our DNA. im living example of it,im 40 kg heavier and about 7-8 inches taller than my father.We still are both human.

Now you need to define 'genetic boundary'.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

And why should i look at evolution fairytale propaganda?

You refuse the links i gave you, and refused to watch the video i gave you. In other words you have no interest in debate or looking at both sides of the evidence.

I read your links. They are full of nonsense. Refuting them is not the same as refusing them. Did you read any of my links?
The Lancelet: AiG tries to respond to Tiktaalik

Same to you (person who refused to click on one link i provided, or watch the video i provided).Shut your eyes to all the evidence.

I watched the video. It is full of nonsense claims and either it is really old or deliberately false and misleading. It does not provide any "evidence" to shut my eyes to. I don't have time to go into what is wrong with their analysis of Archaeopteryx and the evolution of flight right now (maybe later) but here is an example from later in the video.

at ~8:40 we have this statement on legs on whale evolution.

The only fossil evidence is a skull and some teeth, no leg bones.

This statement is directly false.
Of course they fail to mention that even modern whales have rudimentary leg bones.
Whale Anatomy and Photos of Limb Rudiments on Modern Day Whales
I suppose you could get around that by saying it is not fossil evidence.

However, the statement is not true. This page shows that it is not true and points out a similar deception from Sarfati on Answer in Genesis.
A Rather Complete “Incomplete” Ambulocetus Whale Fossil
Here is little more on whale fossils from Gingerich
Philip D. Gingerich

Now you might try to get around it by saying that there were no known leg fossils at the time the picture they mention was drawn (1980) but the speaker states "The only fossil evidence is a skull and several teeth, no leg bones". Unless this u-tube video was made prior to the early 1990's when legged whale fossils had been discovered they are simply lying. If it was made prior to the early 1990's it is so out of date as to be useless anyway.

Added in Edit: the video shows a brief picture of the Tiktaalik fossil, indicating it was made sometime after 2004 so I can only conclude that they are lying about the absence of fossils of legged whales. Thanks for providing us an other example of Creationist dishonesty.