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.
And there are similar limits to biological evolution, too. So what?sure. but can you do that when every extra part is also functional? for instance: if we want do get a jet engine you cant do that by adding only one or 2 parts. a jet engine is very different from a car engine.
this is the number of possible combinations for a single gene. since a tipical gene is about 1000 bp long and since there are about 4 different kinds of bp.And how did you get the numbers for the 4^1000 please?
so this structure cant evolve stepwise.And there are similar limits to biological evolution, too. So what?
are you saying that trucks appeared before cars?I was referring to Xianghua's diagram in particular. It does not reflect the actual developmental hierarchy of motor vehicles.
-_- given that "function" in evolution terms can be as shallow as "makes organism more attractive", the answer is yes. However, you are applying a demand that nature doesn't need to follow. As long as an added part isn't much of a detriment before reproduction, it can persist. Heck, that's how Huntington's disease persists in the population; it doesn't matter that it kills people, it kills them after they have already had kids, so natural selection doesn't weed it out.sure. but can you do that when every extra part is also functional?
Irrelevant as long as it still runs. Heck, all life on this planet has variations on the exact same "engine". I challenge you to find a single organism that doesn't perform glycolysis. The citric acid cycle in no way impedes glycolysis even if it were half formed. Same goes for the electron transport chain. Evolution doesn't replace the engine, it just adds to it. A car equivalent would be having a second engine being built on the side of the first one rather than the first one being replaced. "But Sarah, that wouldn't fit in a car", cells can grow, cars can't, deal with the fact that cars and airplanes don't have all of the same qualities as living organisms.for instance: if we want do get a jet engine you cant do that by adding only one or 2 parts. a jet engine is very different from a car engine.
so if i want to add a motion system to an animal without it, can we do that by adding a single part and then we will get a moving creature?-_- given that "function" in evolution terms can be as shallow as "makes organism more attractive", the answer is yes. However, you are applying a demand that nature doesn't need to follow. As long as an added part isn't much of a detriment before reproduction, it can persist. Heck, that's how Huntington's disease persists in the population; it doesn't matter that it kills people, it kills them after they have already had kids, so natural selection doesn't weed it out.
Irrelevant as long as it still runs. Heck, all life on this planet has variations on the exact same "engine". I challenge you to find a single organism that doesn't perform glycolysis. The citric acid cycle in no way impedes glycolysis even if it were half formed. Same goes for the electron transport chain. Evolution doesn't replace the engine, it just adds to it. A car equivalent would be having a second engine being built on the side of the first one rather than the first one being replaced. "But Sarah, that wouldn't fit in a car", cells can grow, cars can't, deal with the fact that cars and airplanes don't have all of the same qualities as living organisms.
-_- most groups of functional genes have similarities between them. For example, consider methytransferases in plants. Flowering plants often have many different variations of proteins that transfer methyl groups, and all of the methyltransferases have structural similarity even though they react with entirely different compounds.? i talk about axe work on beta-lactamase. he conclude (base on his work and others works too) that the chance to get this specific function is about on in 10^77 tries. how the fact that this wrok from 2004 is any relevant to this result? 10^77 is a huge number so its seems very unlikely to move from one functional gene into a totally different one.
Cellular organelles are always in motion. Our cell membranes are a fluid, so there are a vast variety of mutations that can result in the capacity for a cell to be mobile. Heck, in order to live, cells must be able to expel wastes, and a mutation that results in all waste expulsion being concentrated in a small area of the cell could get it moving.so if i want to add a motion system to an animal without it, can we do that by adding a single part and then we will get a moving creature?
That is a problem for your view, yes.i think this is the problem...
I am saying it again. I am saying it still. The first motor vehicle was a truck designed by Nicholas Joseph Cugnot in 1770. The second motor vehicle was a bus designed by Richard Trevithic in 1801. The first car was not built until some years later, when busses were a commonplace.are you saying that trucks appeared before cars?
many of you may heared about the watch argument by william paley (if a watch need a designer because it cant evolve naturally then also nature need one, because its more complex and have a design traits like a watch (the flagellum motor for instance is a real spinning motor found in bacteria-image below). the argument against it is that a regular watch can replicate itself with variations over time, and thus it cant evolve naturally when nature can evolve because it has those traits. but paley is also talking about a self replicating watch and claiming that even if we will find such a self replicating watch (or a robot) that made from organic components its still be an evidence for design and not a for a natural process (because as far as we know a watch with springs and a motion system and so on need a designer). thus, paley watch a rgument is still valid to this day. check also this argument:My favorite argument for the existence of God
Difference between Prokaryotic flagella and Eukaryotic flagella ~ Biology Exams 4 U
this is the number of possible combinations for a single gene. since a tipical gene is about 1000 bp long and since there are about 4 different kinds of bp.
simply wrong. we can arrange them in a general hierarchy: cars, vans and trucks. very simple.
Give it a rest, xianghua. Your nested hierarchy argument has been answered many times, and you simply ignore it.
The article 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 explains why your argument from a car hierarchy is not valid. You have arranged vehicles in one of many possible hierarchies. Others could arrange by make. Others could arrange by size. Others could arrange by age or option packages. All the orders differ greatly. To be valid, your hierarchy needs to be a consistent, unique hieararchy. It is not. But life yields a consistent hierarchy. There is one simple arrangement known since Linnaeus that logically arranges all life, and is consistent with a wide range of parameters.
Linnaeus wrote before Darwin. His purpose was not to support evolution but to show the pattern he saw. But the pattern turns out to be as evolution predicts."Linnaeus was not an evolutionist.
Linnaeus wrote before Darwin. His purpose was not to support evolution but to show the pattern he saw. But the pattern turns out to be as evolution predicts.
Call created groups families if you like, it is just a name.Linnaeus tried to find similar nested hierarchies for rocks but could not. The nested hierarchy exists only for living things, and is caused by the family relationships.
That is what one would expect from evolution. Groups divide and form a long line of descendents to another divide. Each time a divide occurs animals inherit from their ancestors , thus forming multiple nested groups of characteristics. We never see this in other sets, such as the set of chemical elements or the set of all rocks. See 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 .Irrelevant. Linnaeus attributed the pattern to creation. Show us exactly in what way evolution better explains it?
That is what one would expect from evolution. Groups divide and form a long line of descendents to another divide.
Each time a created kind evolves somewhat, we have the same divide.Each time a divide occurs animals inherit from their ancestors , thus forming multiple nested groups of characteristics.
Well, we do not see the same arrangement, for a group of watches or cars no. But we do see incredible machines that even a not so bright person could see were made. Likewise when looking at incredible animals and man we see millions of created animals that could not possibly have just evolved out of comet dust, or pond slime.We never see this in other sets,
Where do I begin? I read this and it appears you do not even understand the concept of the nested hierarchy argument, and I really can't begin teaching you the basics of nested hierarchy in a thread that is already 1100 posts long. If you are really interested, the concept is described at 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 . If that is over your head, there are some good videos atSo what? If there was creation with evolution we expect the same thing. In other words the created kinds evolved. Same hierarchy.
Each time a created kind evolves somewhat, we have the same divide.
Well, we do not see the same arrangement, for a group of watches or cars no. But we do see incredible machines that even a not so bright person could see were made. Likewise when looking at incredible animals and man we see millions of created animals that could not possibly have just evolved out of comet dust, or pond slime.
You may not claim the similarities between animals as something in the theory of evolution's corner.
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?