The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[Jjmcubbin]

All I said are true.
Take it as your education.

Are all your other 20,000+ posts of the same quality?

 

[juvenissun]

Give me a single circumstance where that is possible. Details.

Because I think you are spouting nonsense because you think you are superior and don't want to admit that people have poked holes in your "witty" retort to the definition of life.

OK, a single simplest example. Hope you can understand.
(previous) rock melted (died) and the lava erupted through a volcano. New rock is born.

 

[Shemjaza]

OK, a single simplest example. Hope you can understand.
(previous) rock melted (died) and the lava erupted through a volcano. New rock is born.

So, I was right: nonsense.

What you stated was that a particular kind of rock can grow more of the same kind of rock.

You can't just use "rock" as generic descriptor and pretend nothing has changed. Rocks forming from minerals isn't even remotely analogous to life forms and I think you have removed any thought readers might have had that you knew what you are talking about.

 

[tas8831]

Yes, they all climb trees when lions are around.

And you still step in it...

No lions where geladas live. Or lemurs. Humans climb trees, too. So what was your point again?

That lions are universally found and preferentially hunt primates? I guess....


You've gone from "Descending from the trees is sheer suicide for any monkey." to 'well golly, no lions around, so...'


Of course, all this contradicts your whole premise, so cling cling cling to those straws!

 

[tas8831]

Nor a lion in sight either.

So are lions the only predators ever?

Your box keeps getting smaller...

 

[tas8831]

You rightly claimed that all dogs came from one wolf gene.

LOL!

No, actually, I use that as a joke - a creationist that pretended to understand genetics made that claim.

Apparently, you believe it, too - which says much about YOUR knowledge of genetics.

Is that the same for all cats?

Is what the same?


So... do you, or do you not, understand that most of the genome is not exonic or regulatory, and basically, by definition, it is 'inactive'?

 

[tas8831]

I don't accept that Africa was where man first formed settlements and originated.

Who said anything about settlements?
Why would you expect to see remains of grass huts?

I need the evidence from archaeology of human settlements in Africa. Reaching back tens and even hundreds of thousands of years. The oldest known human settlement is in Israel, i.e., the Sea of Galilee. I need the hard evidence, surely Africa must be littered with ancient cities and settlements. It just stands to reason!

Wow....

"The oldest known human settlement in the world is located in Catalhöyük, dating to 6500 B.C. The world’s first landscape painting was found on the wall of a Catalhöyük house, illustrating the volcanic eruption of nearby Hasandag."


Lots and lots of very old settlements, based on the presence of human fossils or evidence of stone tools, etc.

List of countries and islands by first human settlement - Wikipedia

Let me guess - your definition of a city or settlement includes the presence of religion or something?

 

[tas8831]

But, according to your earlier posts, there were lions every 100 feet in Africa pouncing on and devouring everything in sight.

"Descending from the trees is sheer suicide for any monkey."

From "sheer suicide" to 'well, they just climb trees when lions come around' or 'no lions there, so...'

Always an out.

 

[juvenissun]

So, I was right: nonsense.

What you stated was that a particular kind of rock can grow more of the same kind of rock.

You can't just use "rock" as generic descriptor and pretend nothing has changed. Rocks forming from minerals isn't even remotely analogous to life forms and I think you have removed any thought readers might have had that you knew what you are talking about.

I was kind to you. I could replace "rock" by their names, just like each human has a name. Every rock is different on the earth.

If you don't want to learn any more, then go away. I am not interested to keep you here.

 

[Kylie]

No.
But my reasons say so.
You need to defeat my reasons to make me admit that rock is not alive.

Your reasons say there is no God.
But you still can believe in God.

Ah, so you don't actually think rocks are alive, you just use it as an example to prove some point...

Of course, if you are to use it as an analogy to a belief in God, it suggests that the point you are making is that you can believe in God if you can have such a poor understanding of things that God seems like the most rational choice. After all, your arguments for rocks being alive are based on extreme misunderstandings about what is actually going on.

 

[Shemjaza]

I was kind to you. I could replace "rock" by their names, just like each human has a name. Every rock is different on the earth.

If you don't want to learn any more, then go away. I am not interested to keep you here.

I asked for specifics. You didn't have them.

You more recent scenario has material broken down to its components and reformed into a completely different structure by different processes.

Maintaining the assertion that rocks are closely analogous to life processes is unsupported, and your bravado is still not helping.

Each human may have a name, but each rock does not. Rocks are distinguished by their chemical makeup and structure, and can be generalised accordingly.

 

[juvenissun]

Ah, so you don't actually think rocks are alive, you just use it as an example to prove some point...

Of course, if you are to use it as an analogy to a belief in God, it suggests that the point you are making is that you can believe in God if you can have such a poor understanding of things that God seems like the most rational choice. After all, your arguments for rocks being alive are based on extreme misunderstandings about what is actually going on.

No. My argument is seriously scientific. It does not need God's intervention. I know what I said and none else in the thread does. Their refutes do not pass the first page of petrology.
Again, I am NOT using it to prove God. It is pure science.

 

[juvenissun]

I asked for specifics. You didn't have them.

You more recent scenario has material broken down to its components and reformed into a completely different structure by different processes.

Maintaining the assertion that rocks are closely analogous to life processes is unsupported, and your bravado is still not helping.

Each human may have a name, but each rock does not. Rocks are distinguished by their chemical makeup and structure, and can be generalised accordingly.

Life deteriorated into its component and reformed into another life by different processes.
Rock does the same, and does it even better than organic life.

What kind of detail you like to hear? Say it.

 

[stevevw]

I'm not sure what you expect. Is it your position that for a feature to be lost, it must just get smaller and smaller over generations and then not be there at some point? The genetics being THAT scenario would be far more fantastic than a mutation that 'turns off' the process of producing teeth.

Yes, a directed mutation if you want to call it that which turns off and on genes that produce a feature through development but not evolution by random mutation and blind evolution. Evolution is supposed to be small and gradual changes/steps and if it was the other way around where a whole feature is produced suddenly by a blind and random process then that would suggest a pre-determined process that was designed to be that way and not evolution.

Besides isnt evolution suppose to be able to undo anything it can evolve and this is something that has been promoted to explain observations of some creatures who have gained a feature and then lost it again and sometimes regained that feature once again. All this is suppose to be accounted for by natural selections great creative power rather than perhaps some other explanation so there is a fair bit of faith in the theory. So if evolution can lose a complete feature it should be able to produce a complete feature in one generation. But that is not how it works nor has this been shown.

What "complete feature" are you talking about?

Any complete feature such as set of teeth, a pair of wings, a set of eyes, a respiratory system.

Again, what do you consider a "complete feature"?

Any feature that requires more than one random mutation. If it requires multiple random mutations to get the exact requirements needed to produce that feature, then this is has been shown to be unlikely for evolution. It would be against phenomenal odds. Refer to citations below.

Why do you think losing a feature would have to be done incrementally?

Because evolution does not work that way. This would be more about development or a deformity. An animal changing to suit their environment is more about developmental biology. They can switch on and off genes due to the environments they occupy. But this is directed and something within the system of the creature is activated to respond to that situation and not because of a blind and random process of evolution.

Otherwise, the complete loss of a feature would be some sort of horrible genetic malfunction of the original genetic info which can happen as we have seen with babies born with features missing. But this only supports the idea that mutations as mainly harmful weather they cause a complete loss or are are only slightly deleterous and can accumulate to have a fitness cost.

Documentation please.

Changing a couple of amino acids at the same time in one protein to gain a functional change is highly unlikely. Small deleterious changes in nucleotides are not picked up and weeded out by selection. With the constant changes in amino acids one by one the slight changes will eventually change the entire sequence and the enzyme will stop doing its original job before it has had a chance to begin its new function. Therefore, the sequence becomes dysfunctional and destroyed. This is the barrier that evolution must overcome when there needs to be multiple mutations to create a new function let alone an entire feature.

The multiple mutations needed to perform the new function need to be specific to the new function without any deleterious ones getting in the way because the deleterous ones will not be weeded out as they are only small. Because evolution is a blind and random process there will always be a problem to gaining a new functional protein because the odds are too much against a random and blind process producing the exact changes needed at the right time and place in one go or one after the other.

Protein burns its evolutionary bridges
Time always marches forward — and so does evolution, according to a new study showing that protein changes that happened over the course of tens of millions of years can prevent molecular turnaround.
Protein burns its evolutionary bridges : Nature News

Experimental Rugged Fitness Landscape in Protein Sequence Space
Based on the landscapes of these two different surfaces, it appears possible for adaptive walks with only random substitutions to climb with relative ease up to the middle region of the fitness landscape from any primordial or random sequence, whereas an enormous range of sequence diversity is required to climb further up the rugged surface above the middle region.
Experimental Rugged Fitness Landscape in Protein Sequence Space

Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds:
The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[stevevw]

What is the mechanism that would allow these genes to 'be there' for so long, just waiting to be needed, avoid mutating out of functionality?

It is not just about existing genes being switched on but also the recombination of existing genetic material and HGT where living things can extract genetic material from those living things around them to change. Nothing will be mutated out of functionality because the genetic info is already integrated into the system and not alien or harmful in the first place. In other words, this is how life works.

This can be supported by discoveries in developmental biology, embryology and genomics where we see there are certain common amino acids and proteins for building all living things that had to be there from the beginning, similar basic control genes that can be switched on in all living things to produce changes and other evidence that shows that most of the complex body plans for life were around very early in life and too early and beyond Darwinian evolution to have evolved such complexity. Also much of the ability for life to change comes from non-adaptive processes rather than adaptive like (Natural selection).

Universal Genome in the Origin of Metazoa: Thoughts About Evolution
According to this model, (a) the Universal Genome that encodes all major developmental programs essential for various phyla of Metazoa emerged in a unicellular or a primitive multicellular organism shortly before the Cambrian period; (b) The Metazoan phyla, all having similar genomes, are nonetheless so distinct because they utilize specific combinations of developmental programs. This model has two major predictions, first that a significant fraction of genetic information in lower taxons must be functionally useless but becomes useful in higher taxons, and second that one should be able to turn on in lower taxons some of the complex latent developmental programs, e.g. a program of eye development or antibody synthesis in sea urchin. An example of natural turning on of a complex latent program in a lower taxon is discussed. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.4161/cc.6.15.4557#.VaEEzbUoTfc

The protein folds as Platonic forms: New support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law
After Darwin, this Platonic conception of form was abandoned and natural selection, not natural law, was increasingly seen to be the main, if not the exclusive, determinant of organic form. However, in the case of one class of very important organic forms-the basic protein folds- advances in protein chemistry since the early 1970s have revealed that they represent a finite set of natural forms, determined by a number of generative constructional rules, like those which govern the formation of atoms or crystals, in which functional adaptations are clearly secondary modifications of primary "givens of physics." The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word, which are bound to occur everywhere in the universe where the same 20 amino acids are used for their construction. We argue that this is a major discovery which has many important implications regarding the origin of proteins, the origin of life and the fundamental nature of organic form.
The protein folds as platonic forms: new support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law. - PubMed - NCBI

Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics

The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the nonadaptive forces of genetic drift and mutation. In addition, emergent biological features such as complexity, modularity, and evolvability, all of which are current targets of considerable speculation, may be nothing more than indirect by-products of processes operating at lower levels of organization.
What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

 

[Shemjaza]

Life deteriorated into its component and reformed into another life by different processes.
Rock does the same, and does it even better than organic life.

That is not a description of how life reproduces. Sure some lifeforms can consume the decomposed remnants of other life, but reproduction from from life. No rock grows this way.

What kind of detail you like to hear? Say it.

An actual name for a rock that can reproduce. Basalt. Granite. Something.

Be as specific and technical as you need to be, if I don't understand I'll look it up, or ask you questions.

Show me I have been ignorant and I'll accept it, apologise and recant on my nonsense comment.

 

[juvenissun]

That is not a description of how life reproduces. Sure some lifeforms can consume the decomposed remnants of other life, but reproduction from from life. No rock grows this way.


An actual name for a rock that can reproduce. Basalt. Granite. Something.

Be as specific and technical as you need to be, if I don't understand I'll look it up, or ask you questions.

Show me I have been ignorant and I'll accept it, apologise and recant on my nonsense comment.

You want to see some features like the biological cell division happened in rock?
You want to see a basalt caused the existence of other basalts?
I can show you the features, but the processes are different. Would that work?

 

[Shemjaza]

You want to see some features like the biological cell division happened in rock?

I'm curious, yes. It needs to be more then a rock breaking into two smaller rocks, because unless those two little rocks can regrow into full sized versions of the original it isn't really analogous.

You want to see a basalt caused the existence of other basalts?

That's just an example. I'm happy with any example.

I can show you the features, but the processes are different. Would that work?

It depends how different a process you are talking about.

Waving involves moving my hand and carving involves moving my hand... but if I said a wooden statue just appeared after I waved my hand I would be dishonest despite it involving hand motion.

 

[juvenissun]

I'm curious, yes. It needs to be more then a rock breaking into two smaller rocks, because unless those two little rocks can regrow into full sized versions of the original it isn't really analogous.

That's just an example. I'm happy with any example.

It depends how different a process you are talking about.

Waving involves moving my hand and carving involves moving my hand... but if I said a wooden statue just appeared after I waved my hand I would be dishonest despite it involving hand motion.

That is why I want to clear this up, before I give you examples.
If you want to see a rock that behaves exactly like a biological life does, so you can agree that a rock is alive, then you are not realistic and can never agree on what I would explain. For example, you want me to show you a rock cell which looks or works exactly like a biological cell.

Instead, you need to review an idea or a question: what is a life?
If we found a silicon based "life" form somewhere in space, which does NOT work like carbon based life on earth, would you call that "life"? How could you recognize that it is alive?

In order to demonstrate that rock is alive according to our "concept" of life, I can show you:
Rocks can be born and rocks can die.
Rocks can grow larger and rocks can "produce" other rocks. (for example, if a basalt can "produce" a granite, would you say that basalt is alive? Why not?)
Rocks can interact with their environment, such as they can eat, drink, and breath.
Rocks can interact with each other.
What else do you like to see which can be taken as a performance of a "life"?

In terms of the process and the mechanism that work behind all those features, they do NOT have to be the same as what a biological life does. Why should they?

Based on what's said, if you agree, then we can continue. Otherwise, you can continue to argue, or be dismissed.

 

[VirOptimus]

It is not just about existing genes being switched on but also the recombination of existing genetic material and HGT where living things can extract genetic material from those living things around them to change. Nothing will be mutated out of functionality because the genetic info is already integrated into the system and not alien or harmful in the first place. In other words, this is how life works.

This can be supported by discoveries in developmental biology, embryology and genomics where we see there are certain common amino acids and proteins for building all living things that had to be there from the beginning, similar basic control genes that can be switched on in all living things to produce changes and other evidence that shows that most of the complex body plans for life were around very early in life and too early and beyond Darwinian evolution to have evolved such complexity. Also much of the ability for life to change comes from non-adaptive processes rather than adaptive like (Natural selection).

Universal Genome in the Origin of Metazoa: Thoughts About Evolution
According to this model, (a) the Universal Genome that encodes all major developmental programs essential for various phyla of Metazoa emerged in a unicellular or a primitive multicellular organism shortly before the Cambrian period; (b) The Metazoan phyla, all having similar genomes, are nonetheless so distinct because they utilize specific combinations of developmental programs. This model has two major predictions, first that a significant fraction of genetic information in lower taxons must be functionally useless but becomes useful in higher taxons, and second that one should be able to turn on in lower taxons some of the complex latent developmental programs, e.g. a program of eye development or antibody synthesis in sea urchin. An example of natural turning on of a complex latent program in a lower taxon is discussed. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.4161/cc.6.15.4557#.VaEEzbUoTfc

The protein folds as Platonic forms: New support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law
After Darwin, this Platonic conception of form was abandoned and natural selection, not natural law, was increasingly seen to be the main, if not the exclusive, determinant of organic form. However, in the case of one class of very important organic forms-the basic protein folds- advances in protein chemistry since the early 1970s have revealed that they represent a finite set of natural forms, determined by a number of generative constructional rules, like those which govern the formation of atoms or crystals, in which functional adaptations are clearly secondary modifications of primary "givens of physics." The folds are evidently determined by natural law, not natural selection, and are "lawful forms" in the Platonic and pre-Darwinian sense of the word, which are bound to occur everywhere in the universe where the same 20 amino acids are used for their construction. We argue that this is a major discovery which has many important implications regarding the origin of proteins, the origin of life and the fundamental nature of organic form.
The protein folds as platonic forms: new support for the pre-Darwinian conception of evolution by natural law. - PubMed - NCBI

Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or ‘forest’ of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics

The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the nonadaptive forces of genetic drift and mutation. In addition, emergent biological features such as complexity, modularity, and evolvability, all of which are current targets of considerable speculation, may be nothing more than indirect by-products of processes operating at lower levels of organization.
What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

Write an article for peer-review. If you cant, well then your ”view” doesnt matter.