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.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Common ancestry is determined using the very same methods that are accepted in court to determine human ancestry. Are you ready to throw those out?
at least I through out lucy as a possibility
to date you have given no links, no sources, no observations, and no conclusive evidence. should I proceed?
ok give me your evidence for these methods? or are you just hopefull? layout your argument.
ok give me your evidence for these methods? or are you just hopefull? layout your argument.
GradyNo you are wrong. Macroevolution is *at* or above speciation. If you have speciation, you have macroevolution.
You are trying to quote mine. The actual quote isI believe you are in fact the one mistaken here:
as the generic sites usually will say "at or above the level of species," but the more technical sites like UC Berkley say "above the level of species".
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...finition.shtml "Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level" (link works half the time)
Here macroevolution is not referring to an individual species but broader (above species level).Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.
That means that once you go past a single population (species) you are into macroevolution. Evolution at different scales: micro to macroMicroevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species.
Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaMacroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.
From that site:
As most can see microevolution is referring to a single population.Macroevolution : Change above the species level NABT 2006 Evolution Symposium
Introduction
The basic concept of evolution "change over time“ can be examined in two different time frames. The first, which considers the time period covering a few generations for a population, is microevolution.
From the site:
If you read the page you would see that this just does not discuss macro or micro evolution at but was just an announcement of a symposium titled Macroevolution: Evolution above the species level" with no discussion of the topic.2006 Annual Meeting of the National Association of Biology Teachers -- Albuquerque, NM This year's theme: "Macroevolution: Evolution above the Species Level"
More? I would like to see even one supporting your stance. So far you have not presented any.want more?
Dizredux
Grady You are trying to quote mine. The actual quote is Here macroevolution is not referring to an individual species but broader (above species level).
Now back to the Berkley site I quoted: That means that once you go past a single population (species) you are into macroevolution. Evolution at different scales: micro to macro
You chose to ignore this.
Again I repeat the Wiki article Macroevolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You also chose to ignore this one.
You then presented From that site: As most can see microevolution is referring to a single population.
Next you went to this:From the site: If you read the page you would see that this just does not discuss macro or micro evolution at but was just an announcement of a symposium titled Macroevolution: Evolution above the species level" with no discussion of the topic.
What all this says is that microevolution concerns the changes in a population (species) and macroevolution concerns evolution above the level of a single species. In other words, once you have speciation you have more than one population and therefore have macroevolution.
More? I would like to see even one supporting your stance. So far you have not presented any.
I said that I was not going to respond to you for a while but this was just a bit too blatant.
Dizredux
I am not a geneticist but I dont think its just about nematodes. Besides aren't they a worm type thing and humans share 75% of their DNA with them.How much of the human and chimp genome is made up of genes from nematodes? You are talking about a tiny, tiny fraction of the genome, and they are easily detected. This is no different than E RV's which can easily be used to CONFIRM the tree-like pattern.
Well what it may suggest is that some creatures cross bred in the past and had the ability to produce more fertile off springs. So if this is the case then it suggests that this was another mechanism for creating other species besides mutated genes. By mating with another different animal a new species could be produced. Over time they can become more isolated and lose the ability to cross breed and become an independent species. But crossing breed can be another method of transferring genetics that make creatures look like they come from each other besides evolution.Exchange with the nearest branches is not a tangled tree.
You have focused on the one site that had some religios connections. The 99% of the other which said the same thing were science sites like nature.com. pnas, geneticliteracyproject, ifsblog which is not a religious site and made by an anthropologist, io9 - We come from the future. is not a religious site.I don't like the answers because they are lies from creationist sites.
I do you just dont acknowledge them and pick out the one site that has some religious connection and say its invalid. The problem with that is you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Some sites with a religious connect are not creationists sites and have valid info which can be substantiated on non religious sites. Normally when I include a religious site I am very aware that evolutions will jump on even a sniff of any connection to religion so I also include non religious and science sites to back that up. The other problem is that some science sites can also be biased and paint a misleading picture but because they have the science connection evolutionists will be more readily accepting of these without really questioning their validity.Please use real scientific sources.
Because they are the same species. What other species did they come from if they are the same species. You need two different species to show transitions dont you. This will allow you to show the similar features which connect them together to show transitions. But as I said before there are a number of other reasons this could be like HGT or they just look similar in the way they were made and are totally unrelated ie shark and dolphin. But also with genetics now it is also showing some connection with animals that dont look like they are related and are not according to Darwin's tree of life.Why isn't that same species a transitional species?
I dont understand what you mean.Since there is variation within the dog species, does that mean they are human also?
No I am saying because there is so much variation its hard to tell what is variation and what may be transitional if any. Evolutionists use to use various skulls as examples of different ape man species to show how the features gradually changed which was suppose to show the transitions into humans. But with the discovery of the skulls at Georgia for example this showed several of those shaped skulls together. This then brought into question that they were separate species and thus transitionals. So suddenly they lost several transitionals they had made. This also suggested that there were fewer species around which to some pointed to a lack of evolution.Why does variation amongst individuals in the species H. erectus prevent them from being transitional? Are you saying that there will be zero variation in a transitional species? If so, explain why.
Well they could if it was proven. But thats the problem its not completely. Plus when it gets to the homo species there is a lot of patchy evidence. Because of the discoveries of more variation within the same species it takes away there being as many transitions which leaves more gaps. It also suggests that there was only one or two species anyway. The Australopithecines look so ape like and there is dispute about whether they are fully ape or a transitional. So its up for debate and nothing is definite and we need to do more research to see. But in the mean time how can evolutionists say that it is fact.So why don't Australopithecines and early Homo species fit this description?
It is suppose to show transitions from an ape to a human. How do we know that all the Australopithecines are just variations of apes and all the homos are just variations of humans with a few questionable ones in between because of other reasons like deformities or just have very strong features. How do we know that some of the so called species didn't come from HGT and thus didn't evolve from a previous one but were the result of cross breeding two different species to produce a new one. That would mean that that particular new species didn't evolve through natural selection which takes away evolution.Chimps, humans, Australopithecines, and our common ancestor were all primates. It is primates evolving into primates. So why do you have a problem with it since they are still the same type of animal? We are all just variations of primates.
There can be variations if transitions are true between species. Not everyone looks the same and we have many different variations. But there is a difference between variations of the same species and different features gradually stepping towards changing into a new species. Because the changing features will gradually show the additions of the new type of creature its turning into. Variation within a creature will never show this completely. It will stop at a point and not go any further. So if a Dino is changing into a bird the prominent feature that will make it a transition will be the wings. But variations with a Dino species may also show feathers and some wing like features and it is still a dino and may have never been going to change into a bird. That is the problem its hard to definitely tell.Why does variation within a transitional species prevent it from being transitional?
Well we see some similar features but we dont know if thats just because of the way they were made. There are similar features between a dolphin and a shark but one is a mammal and they are not closely related. So similar features alone doesn't make them transitional. Plus some animals that are closely related dont look like each other through genetics. Common features does not only mean common decent. It can also mean common design.Thats exactly what we see with Australopithecines and other Homo species.
. . . .But I found this article which claims that ERV's may not have been inserted bt retroviruses. In summary, a very strong case can be made pointing to the view that ERVs were not inserted by retroviruses.
No, a very strong case can NOT be made that ERV's were not inserted by retroviruses. It is a case of creationist denial, where words are substituted for reason and logic.
They have function,
SOME retroviral inserts have been around in the genomes so long that their sequences have become incorporated into functioning genes, due to evolution. This is NOT an argument against their being, originally, genuine retroviral inserts.
should have been ridden by apoptosis,
Well, presumably a lot of individuals infected by retroviruses DID die, and their genes are no longer with us. Only a very few survived the infections and lived on, but those are the ones that left their genes with us.
are different than their ancestral genomes,
Well, an ERV insert in a virus that failed is basically just junk DNA that doesn't really hurt the organism that has it, so this is not really an objection. A bit of extra junk DNA is a difference, of course, but nothing you'd notice in the person that had it.
and it is incredible that the organisms did not die after being infected with so many viral genes.
See, this is the kind of nonsense you creationists utter that makes us realize you have no idea about what science has really uncovered. The retroviral inserts come into the species only one insert at a time. They accumulate in hundreds of thousands not because one individual got a hundreds of thousands of infections, and was therefore deathly sick, but because the inserts, one at a time, happened over a very long time and accumulated. No single individual ever had to endure more than one such infection in order to get the each insert started.
With so many problems, how can evolutionists continue to use ERVs as evidence for evolution?
Do Endogenous Retroviral Sequences (ERVs) Prove Evolution? | EvolutionDismantled.com
Your objections are like those of defense attorneys stuck with defending clearly guilty clients, and we the jury can easily see through such transparently bogus arguments.
Well I'm not a creationists for starters so you have already made presumptions that are wrong. As I have already admitted I am not a geneticist so I am not fully qualified to speak on these matters with any great knowledge. I try to research as best I can and get some understanding. The link I provided as far as I know was not a creationist site.No, a very strong case can NOT be made that ERV's were not inserted by retroviruses. It is a case of creationist denial, where words are substituted for reason and logic.
SOME retroviral inserts have been around in the genomes so long that their sequences have become incorporated into functioning genes, due to evolution. This is NOT an argument against their being, originally, genuine retroviral inserts.
Well, presumably a lot of individuals infected by retroviruses DID die, and their genes are no longer with us. Only a very few survived the infections and lived on, but those are the ones that left their genes with us.
Well, an ERV insert in a virus that failed is basically just junk DNA that doesn't really hurt the organism that has it, so this is not really an objection. A bit of extra junk DNA is a difference, of course, but nothing you'd notice in the person that had it.
See, this is the kind of nonsense you creationists utter that makes us realize you have no idea about what science has really uncovered. The retroviral inserts come into the species only one insert at a time. They accumulate in hundreds of thousands not because one individual got a hundreds of thousands of infections, and was therefore deathly sick, but because the inserts, one at a time, happened over a very long time and accumulated. No single individual ever had to endure more than one such infection in order to get the each insert started.
Your objections are like those of defense attorneys stuck with defending clearly guilty clients, and we the jury can easily see through such transparently bogus arguments.
I am wondering if you have any qualifications on genetics. Don't they say that the so called junk DNA isn't junk and they are finding more and more function for it all the time. I would say a person would have to be very trained in genetics to comment on this subject themselves without any backup. Even then it would be good to have some support. To be able to make rebuttals from your own say so with as much confidence as you are doing seems to be a little over confident.
The other point is if you are a christian and believe in evolution then what level of evolution do you believe. Are you saying that there was no Adam and eve which seems to be the line that had all the great men of the bible like Noah and Abraham and lead to Jesus Himself. I can never understand how a Christian can believe in both the Darwinian evolution and that God is somehow responsible for making this world and universe. If it all happened through naturalistic process and was self creating where does that leave God. In that sense you may as well not believe in God in the first place as he doesn't seem to be doing much at all and is just a token symbol in the whole event.
What about this site. To be honest I dont really understand ERV's completely and will have to do a lot more reading.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004268221100479X
The other point is if you are a christian and believe in evolution then what level of evolution do you believe. Are you saying that there was no Adam and eve which seems to be the line that had all the great men of the bible like Noah and Abraham and lead to Jesus Himself. I can never understand how a Christian can believe in both the Darwinian evolution and that God is somehow responsible for making this world and universe. If it all happened through naturalistic process and was self creating where does that leave God. In that sense you may as well not believe in God in the first place as he doesn't seem to be doing much at all and is just a token symbol in the whole event.
Well I'm not a creationists for starters so you have already made presumptions that are wrong. As I have already admitted I am not a geneticist so I am not fully qualified to speak on these matters with any great knowledge. I try to research as best I can and get some understanding. The link I provided as far as I know was not a creationist site.
I am wondering if you have any qualifications on genetics. Don't they say that the so called junk DNA isn't junk and they are finding more and more function for it all the time. I would say a person would have to be very trained in genetics to comment on this subject themselves without any backup. Even then it would be good to have some support. To be able to make rebuttals from your own say so with as much confidence as you are doing seems to be a little over confident.
The other point is if you are a christian and believe in evolution then what level of evolution do you believe. Are you saying that there was no Adam and eve which seems to be the line that had all the great men of the bible like Noah and Abraham and lead to Jesus Himself. I can never understand how a Christian can believe in both the Darwinian evolution and that God is somehow responsible for making this world and universe. If it all happened through naturalistic process and was self creating where does that leave God. In that sense you may as well not believe in God in the first place as he doesn't seem to be doing much at all and is just a token symbol in the whole event.
What about this site. To be honest I dont really understand ERV's completely and will have to do a lot more reading.
Identification and classification of endogenous retroviruses in the canine genome using degenerative PCR and in-silico data analysis
DNA analysis
of what? How? and to what extent? Layout your argument. Until then it's just opinion.
It's called DNA. Same methods used in paternity tests. Good summary here, but feel free to ignore.
of what? How? and to what extent? Layout your argument. Until then it's just opinion.
No I dont identify with any group. Up until coming on this site I hadn't really heard of the terms. I am just an average person who is asking the questions. I try to keep an open mind and look at both sides. Of course I am going to believe that living things didn't create themselves or that life came from nothing. I believe in a form of evolution but not one that can create new animals out of existing ones. Creatures have a limited ability to evolve within their gene pool so they can adapt to their environment such as in size and colour and shape. But like Darwin's finches their beaks changed shape and size so they could adapt to the changing environment for finding food. But they remained finches and didn't turn into rabbits or lizards.are you ID? They are not the same as Biblical Creationists. I sometimes use the words interchangeably for ease of use, but they are entirely separate fields.
I believe in a form of evolution but not one that can create new animals out of existing ones.
Many aspects of evolution are not definitely proven and some can make it fact when its not.
From what I understand those who believe in God and darwinian evolution believe that God started the process of evolution and thats how we get life from no life. But how Adam and Eve come into I am not sure. The fall of man is being seen today. Some say sinse then our genetics has deteriorated and will continue until we are susceptible to all sorts of things. Its like a de evolution rather than evolution.At last....something upon which we would agree...! I too find it difficult to see how one can simultaneously hold the idea that there was an 'original pair' from whom all humanity descended and from whom we all 'inherit' this idea of a 'fallen nature', while at the same time holding an acceptance that humankind evolved from other species...
Something about wanting cake and eating it....
Let's look at this, you still don't know how life came about because you don't know what a God is or how a God came to be, if you replaced the word "God" with any other name you can think of the result would be exactly the same, you would still not know where life came from and you would be no closer to finding the answer.From what I understand those who believe in God and darwinian evolution believe that God started the process of evolution and thats how we get life from no life.
I was asking a question as to how a person who believes in evolution and God thinks. Not how I think. I know what I believe and think and I'm not a non thinker. But there also comes a time when thinking and maths and science and all the brain power in the world wont give you the answer and you have to know when that is. Thats called faith, Hebrews 11:1. Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.Let's look at this, you still don't know how life came about because you don't know what a God is or how a God came to be, if you replaced the word "God" with any other name you can think of the result would be exactly the same, you would still not know where life came from and you would be no closer to finding the answer.
It's reminds me of another non-answer story,
how did that big rock get up on top of that mountain? the big Wingwang put it there, what's the big Wingwang? I don't know but it put that big rock up on top of that mountain.
That is the kind of thinking required to be religious, I have heard it called non-thinking acceptance.
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?