Why do you believe in the evolution theory?

[Loudmouth]

Because God wouldn't have a goal in that scenario.

So now we get to the heart of why you can't accept the evidence for random mutations. It goes against your religious beliefs.

 

[bhsmte]

So now we get to the heart of why you can't accept the evidence for random mutations. It goes against your religious beliefs.

Was there ever any question about that?

 

[crjmurray]

So now we get to the heart of why you can't accept the evidence for random mutations. It goes against your religious beliefs.

I'm not sure this is the revealing discovery you think it is.

 

[justlookinla]

So now we get to the heart of why you can't accept the evidence for random mutations. It goes against your religious beliefs.

You question was about God creating the first life form and then allowing random/chance mutations to create all life we observe today, including humanity.

Of course it goes against my religious beliefs, not to mention there's no evidence for random/chance mutations creating humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not sure this is the revealing discovery you think it is.

For my second act, I will discuss how the sky is blue . . . --Captain Obvious

 

[Davian]

Absolutely necessary for designed machines.

You'd have to identify that.

I cannot work with something so poorly structured.

However, if you think it is workable, tell me, by those "parameters", what is not designed, or capitulate.

 

[Loudmouth]

not to mention there's no evidence for random/chance mutations creating humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago.

Of course there is. Sequence conservation compared to unconserved sequence is just that evidence. It demonstrates that detrimental mutations have to be removed from DNA sequences through natural selection. If mutations are detrimental, neutral, and beneficial, then they are random with respect to fitness. Also, we see a nested hierarchy which is expected from random mutations.

 

[justlookinla]

Of course there is. Sequence conservation compared to unconserved sequence is just that evidence. It demonstrates that detrimental mutations have to be removed from DNA sequences through natural selection. If mutations are detrimental, neutral, and beneficial, then they are random with respect to fitness. Also, we see a nested hierarchy which is expected from random mutations.

Sequence conservation? Start with the first life form and give evidence that both an elephant and pine tree are the results of random/chance mutation sequence conservation acting on this alleged single life form of long long ago.

Your faith-based opinion isn't what I'm asking for, I'm asking for conclusions supported by the scientific method.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sequence conservation? Start with the first life form and give evidence that an elephant and pine tree is the result of random/chance mutation sequence conservation acting on this alleged single life form of long long ago.

We can use living species to determine what has happened in each lineage since diverging from a common ancestor.

Your faith-based opinion isn't what I'm asking for, I'm asking for conclusions supported by the scientific method.

That is what I am giving you, conclusions backed by real evidence and the scientific method.

"In genetics, the Ka/Ks ratio (or ω, dN/dS), is the ratio of the number of nonsynonymous substitutions per non-synonymous site (Ka) to the number of synonymous substitutions per synonymous site (Ks), which can be used as an indicator of selective pressure acting on a protein-coding gene."
Ka/Ks ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[justlookinla]

We can use living species to determine what has happened in each lineage since diverging from a common ancestor.

Start with the first life form. Show your evidence using the scientific method.

That is what I am giving you, conclusions backed by real evidence and the scientific method.

"In genetics, the Ka/Ks ratio (or ω, dN/dS), is the ratio of the number of nonsynonymous substitutions per non-synonymous site (Ka) to the number of synonymous substitutions per synonymous site (Ks), which can be used as an indicator of selective pressure acting on a protein-coding gene."
Ka/Ks ratio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That has nothing to do with the view that only random/chance mutations created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago. Simply claiming your conclusion is using the scientific method doesn't mean that your conclusion uses the scientific method.

 

[Loudmouth]

Start with the first life form.

I am starting with the evidence, as you are supposed to do with the scientific method.

That has nothing to do with the view that only random/chance mutations created humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago. Simply claiming your conclusion is using the scientific method doesn't mean that your conclusion uses the scientific method.

It has everything to do with humans evolving. It demonstrates that detrimental mutations do happen, and that they are under negative selection.

 

[justlookinla]

I am starting with the evidence, as you are supposed to do with the scientific method.

I take it that's a no, I'm not going to start with the first life form? Maybe if you would start by identifying the first life form. Using the scientific method of course.

It has everything to do with humans evolving. It demonstrates that detrimental mutations do happen, and that they are under negative selection.

No, it doesn't.

 

[Loudmouth]

I take it that's a no, I'm not going to start with the first life form?

You start with the evidence, not the conclusion. Humans evolving from a universal common ancestor is the conclusion.

Maybe if you would start by identifying the first life form.

I can identify the evidence that all life shares a universal common ancestor, but you don't seem interested in evidence.

No, it doesn't.

Why not?

 

[whois]

LOL it's talking theoretical storage in a GRAM of DNA, the average cell only has 7.11*10[sup]-13[/sup] Grams of DNA so you need about 1.4*10[sup]12 [/sup] cells to get the equivalent storage. (FYI They haven't actually created this storage on that scale either)

hmmm . . .
if i did my math right, that works out to 500 bytes, which is 4000 bits.
i believe the average human DNA contains more than 4000 base pairs.
please correct me if i'm wrong.

 

[justlookinla]

You start with the evidence, not the conclusion. Humans evolving from a universal common ancestor is the conclusion.

I can identify the evidence that all life shares a universal common ancestor, but you don't seem interested in evidence.

Or, conversely, there is a designer using common building blocks.

Why not?

Because there is no evidence (scientific method) that random/chance detrimental mutations,under negative selection, is capable of producing the complex and varied life forms we observe today from an alleged single life form of long long ago.

 

[Loudmouth]

Or, conversely, there is a designer using common building blocks.

A designer does not produce a nested hierarchy, as has been explained to you over and over and over:

Because of these facts, a cladistic analysis of cars will not produce a unique, consistent, well-supported tree that displays nested hierarchies. A cladistic analysis of cars (or, alternatively, a cladistic analysis of imaginary organisms with randomly assigned characters) will of course result in a phylogeny, but there will be a very large number of other phylogenies, many of them with very different topologies, that are as well-supported by the same data. In contrast, a cladistic analysis of organisms or languages will generally result in a well-supported nested hierarchy, without arbitrarily weighting certain characters (Ringe 1999). Cladistic analysis of a true genealogical process produces one or relatively few phylogenetic trees that are much more well-supported by the data than the other possible trees.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
​

Because there is no evidence (scientific method) that random/chance detrimental mutations,under negative selection, is capable of producing the complex and varied life forms we observe today from an alleged single life form of long long ago.

The evidence is the nested hierarchy.

 

[whois]

There is ample proof that they have a mixture of human and ape features which makes them evidence for the theory of evolution.

or they could be nothing more than freaks of nature.
we only have 3.4% of the required fossils of the primate fossil tree.
there is no clear cut proof that man descended from apes, whales, or alligators.

 

[pgp_protector]

hmmm . . .
if i did my math right, that works out to 500 bytes, which is 4000 bits.
i believe the average human DNA contains more than 4000 base pairs.
please correct me if i'm wrong.

The human genome contains about 3 Billion base pairs, so you're off by a few factors. (About 370Meg of data not counting addressing that's required by the system) and that's no where near the 700 terabytes of data mentioned.

ETA I've got a 64Gig card and it only weights about 0.5 Grams.

 

[justlookinla]

A designer does not produce a nested hierarchy, as has been explained to you over and over and over:

A designer produces whatever a designer wishes to produce, assuming the designer has the skills and ability to produce the design.

Because of these facts, a cladistic analysis of cars will not produce a unique, consistent, well-supported tree that displays nested hierarchies. A cladistic analysis of cars (or, alternatively, a cladistic analysis of imaginary organisms with randomly assigned characters) will of course result in a phylogeny, but there will be a very large number of other phylogenies, many of them with very different topologies, that are as well-supported by the same data. In contrast, a cladistic analysis of organisms or languages will generally result in a well-supported nested hierarchy, without arbitrarily weighting certain characters (Ringe 1999). Cladistic analysis of a true genealogical process produces one or relatively few phylogenetic trees that are much more well-supported by the data than the other possible trees.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
​

The evidence is the nested hierarchy.

You still aren't staring, using the scientific method, with the first life form. Why not?

Nested hierarchy isn't evidence of anything but nested hierarchy.

 

[Loudmouth]

A designer produces whatever a designer wishes to produce, assuming the designer has the skills and ability to produce the design.

This means that there is no expectation of a nested hierarchy from a designer. Thanks for making my argument for me.

You still aren't staring, using the scientific method, with the first life form.

Yes, I did.

According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life. Some of the macroscopic properties that characterize all of life are (1) replication, (2) heritability (characteristics of descendents are correlated with those of ancestors), (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism). At a very minimum, these four functions are required to generate a physical historical process that can be described by a phylogenetic tree.

If every living species descended from an original species that had these four obligate functions, then all living species today should necessarily have these functions (a somewhat trivial conclusion). Most importantly, however, all modern species should have inherited the structures that perform these functions. Thus, a basic prediction of the genealogical relatedness of all life, combined with the constraint of gradualism, is that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these four basic life processes.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
​

That is the evidence for a universal common ancestor, the shared features in all ife.

Nested hierarchy isn't evidence of anything but nested hierarchy.

It is evidence for evolution through random mutations and selection.