Wherein I catch a professional YEC in a lie

[DogmaHunter]

Then who is y-Adam?

A common male ancestor of male humans, that lived some 80.000 years ago.

And no, he was not the only male alive at that time. And that individual had ancestors as well.
He's just the most recent common ancestor of the "Y" chromosome. That's it.

Mitochondrial eve is the same kind of ancestors, but then in the female lineage. These individual is also twice the age of Y-adam. Estimated to have lived some 150.000 years ago.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And who gifted those individuals with the ingenuity to hybridize those bananas?

Not "who", but "what".

 

[PsychoSarah]

You have only presented what you consider evidence. You have NEVER included the HOW, it worked.

Dude, anyone can easily look up how horizontal gene transfer works in bacteria, and I did explain how the all female lizard species was produced, down to why it ended up being triploid when the parent species are diploid (nondisjunction of the chromosomes in the sex cells).

But hey, the guy that constantly talks about knowing and understanding genetics shouldn't need pages and pages of explanation about basic genetics concepts, because anyone that would dare try to claim expertise in the subject would know plenty about them. That'd make you and exceedingly ignorant person asserting that other people are ignorant, now wouldn't it? And you wouldn't do something like that, right?

Instead of wandering all over the place, let's stick to one thing---present the evidence for natural selection.

-_- animals with traits that are beneficial for survival and reproduction accomplish both tasks better than animals with traits that are detrimental to those things, and this shapes the qualities of the future populations. Easy to observe in humans or any other organism. For example, note that there isn't a single genetic disease that kills before sexual maturity that has a purely dominant inheritance pattern that's common (please, do not mistake X-linked recessive for pure dominant inheritance). That's because the people with those genetic defects don't get the opportunity to reproduce.

 

[xianghua]

And mammals and reptiles are both vertebrates

but they dont belong to the same class. right? but all banana kinds belong to the same family "Musaceae":

Musaceae - Wikipedia

so this is a wrong comparison.

 

[omega2xx]

Dude, anyone can easily look up how horizontal gene transfer works in bacteria, and I did explain how the all female lizard species was produced, down to why it ended up being triploid when the parent species are diploid (nondisjunction of the chromosomes in the sex cells).

But hey, the guy that constantly talks about knowing and understanding genetics shouldn't need pages and pages of explanation about basic genetics concepts, because anyone that would dare try to claim expertise in the subject would know plenty about them. That'd make you and exceedingly ignorant person asserting that other people are ignorant, now wouldn't it? And you wouldn't do something like that, right?


-_- animals with traits that are beneficial for survival and reproduction accomplish both tasks better than animals with traits that are detrimental to those things, and this shapes the qualities of the future populations. Easy to observe in humans or any other organism. For example, note that there isn't a single genetic disease that kills before sexual maturity that has a purely dominant inheritance pattern that's common (please, do not mistake X-linked recessive for pure dominant inheritance). That's because the people with those genetic defects don't get the opportunity to reproduce.

Survival is not a mechanism for a change of species.

All you have done is parrot the usual, non-provable talking points of evolution. Do you really not understand what constitutes evidence?

 

[omega2xx]

The accumulation of mutations that achieve fictation, do.
Mutations do not achieve fication.

Speciation: a gradual process that unfolds in populations, not in individuals and not overnight.

The inability to reproduce does not make a new species.

lol....



That's a piece of data. An observation.
When we say that there is no proof in science, we are talking about explanations.
You can't prove explanations in science. You can only support them with evidence or falsify them.

So there is no "proof". Only evidence and disproof.

That is piece of data that can and has been proved scientifically.

That is pure nonsense invented by those who finally realized they can't prove anything in the TOE.

Proof is not about explanations. Proof is about seeing and repeating something.

Perhaps you heared the phrase once: "science isn't in the business of proving things. it is rather in the business of disproving things..."

That isn't the dumbest thing one can say about science, but it is in the top 5. Make that the top 3.

All of them, just data/measurements/observations.

Data, measurements and observation proved by real science. Too bad science can't prove any theology the TOE preaches

 

[omega2xx]

It seems kind of obvious that only existing things can mutate.
But you're changing your language now.

You said: An offspring can't acquire a characteristic not in the gene pool of its parents.

You didn't say "gene". You said "characteristic".
And the ability to digest a certain substance, certainly qualifies as a characteristic.

In the experiment I mentioned, the population could not do it before generation 31.000 and then could do it after generation 31.000. And the mutations that made it possible have been identified. The change also caused a population explosion, since suddenly it had access to a much greater food supply.

Having said that.... an organism CAN acquire a gene that isn't present in its parents.
All that needs to happen is a gene duplication. Now, the off spring has 1 gene more then its parents.



And adding new ones. Like the ability to digest citrate.



Speciation is inevitable over time. It's also been observed in the wild as well as the lab.
You seem to be suffering from the Ostrich Syndrom.



Speciation is a process that unfolds on the level of the population, not in individuals.
And it doesn't happen overnight either. It's a gradual process.
Had you informed yourself on the basics of the theory, you would have known that.


Always strange to see people feeling qualified to argue against an established scientific theory, while also being quite ignorant about what the theory actually says......

The ability to digest something does not change the species any more than than a change in skin pigmentation is not a new species.

 

[omega2xx]

In evolution, every individual ever born was of the same species as its parents.

Not really sure what you are on about with this "not as a different kind" thingy.



I just told you: the central idea of natural selection is that the "fittest" will have the highest chance of survival and reproduction. Where "fittest" doesn't mean "stronger, faster, taller" but rather "best adapted to the niche it inhabits". What "fit" means in any given environment, depends completely on that environment and the needs of the species. This collection of parameters and how they relate to the species, is generally referred to as "the selection pressure".



Indeed seriously.
Every post you make, exposes your ignorance on the theory.

Like your first remark in this post about those "different kinds".

YAWN

 

[omega2xx]

The thing depicted in the pictures is.
I'm sorry, I can't post an actual physical wild banana on this forum.



Reproduce with modification, survive, repeat.


ps: in the case of these banana's, it's actually us humans that steered this evolution from the wild ugly thing into the beautiful and delicious chiquita banana.... by artificially selecting the ones with the most "meat" and the least seed. Those cultivated banana's, are our creation. We used the processes of natural evolution to artificially turn the wild banana into delicious fruit.

And we did the same with cabbage... from a single wild plant, we cultivated it into brocolli, brussels sprouts and many others.

There were no genetic engineers that changed the DNA of wild banana's such that it would change into delicious chiquita banana's.... The DNA changed on its own through descent with modification. The only difference with natural evolution is that we humans selected the breeding pairs for the next generation. Artifical selection, instead of natural selection.

Just as I suspected and now know. You don't have a clue about what constitutes evidence. Let me give you a clue, rhetoric does not qualify.

 

[omega2xx]

I've asked you before what you mean by "HOW" and you just mumbled incoherently and pretended that you'd given a sensible answer. So let's try again. Please provide a definition of the word "HOW".

In reality? Pretty much every poster on this thread does. What you mean by evidence? I'm not sure even you could explain. So please, provide a definition of "evidence".

Get a good dictionary, read the definitions and when you think you understand therm, get back to me.

 

[omega2xx]

Maybe you should take a Biology 101 course since the above is nonsensical.



Evidence, not proof.



Evidence, not proof.



Evidence, not proof.

Now I got a question for you:

How do you KNOW the universe wasn't created last Thursday with all of our memories of things that didn't actually happen.

What can be seen and repeated and can't be falsified has been proved. To say that it has not been proved that there is more than one blood type is denying the obvious, which is illogical.

There is no evidence the universe was created last Thursday. That is just a silly, irrelevant question.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Get a good dictionary, read the definitions and when you think you understand therm, get back to me.

I did that, and the definitions in the dictionary are the ones the rest of us use. But you don't use those definitions. So I'm asking you to provide your definitions so we can try to understand what you are attempting to communicate. I won't insist that you type the words in a post, you may provide a link to your definition. Some of us are prepared to read linked material

 

[Skreeper]

What can be seen and repeated and can't be falsified has been proved.

You're wrong. It's completely impossible to prove anything in science. 100% certainty can never be achieved and all we can do is find the most probable answer based on our current data.

 

[pitabread]

And who gifted those individuals with the ingenuity to hybridize those bananas?

Their parents?

 

[AV1611VET]

Their parents?

Care to try again?

 

[Speedwell]

What can be seen and repeated and can't be falsified has been proved.

A scientist is more likely to say, "What can be seen and repeated and can't be falsified has been confirmed."

The term "proof" is generally reserved for axiomatic formal systems like logic and math.

 

[DogmaHunter]

but they dont belong to the same class.

They belong to the group of vertebrates.

right? but all banana kinds belong to the same family "Musaceae":

And Eukaryotes. Just like mammals and reptiles.

so this is a wrong comparison.

It is not. At least not, to someone who understands the basics of taxonomy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

...

Try fixing your quoting tags.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The ability to digest something does not change the species any more than than a change in skin pigmentation is not a new species.

Except for the fact that it can now do something that it previously couldn't.

You can argue the facts all you want, but it is what it is.

 

[DogmaHunter]

YAWN

Is that your way of saying that you don't have a response to the points raised?