New Fossils Found in South Africa (Evolution??????)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/scien … wanted=all
New fossils were found in South Africa which may help further explain human evolution. The fossils apparently show combinations of apelike and human combinations.
Any thoughts?As with all finds we have to wait and see. But evolution is a fact. There is no getting around it.
However, you have to realize one thing. We are not descended from apes. We are a specific species of ape. All ape species have common ancestors that were not apes.
Tracing this linage through the fossil record is not an easy thing. However genetics tells the story far better. Unfortunately it does not give us pretty pictures to look at.
If evolution is a fact, how does the theory explain the elements that can not evolve?. The conserved elements in all species are not subject to any evolutionary mechanisms, yet Darwinian evolution requires ALL elements in the cells to be subject to change. All of the proteins in all the molecular machines studied are highly conserved (unable to evolve)
UCE falsify Darwinian evolution.Baffled: all articles I've ever read about the evolution of proteins in molecular machines support Darwinian theory.
You wouldn't be talking about conserved sequences here, would you? The ones that mean that when they mutate, your head falls off, so you don't get to reproduce? Obviously some gene sequences are more important to immediate survival than others, and therefore persist.
There are no elements that cannot evolve; just some that evolve more readily than others.
'UCE falsify Darwinian evolution' is about as meaningful as 'Italian Scientists disprove Einstein'. Neither are remotely true, but they make good headlines.Yes I am talking about conserved sequences. The problem is they exist in all species including the most primitive cells. Darwinian evolution predicts 100% of the biological system must be subject to change.
This is not the case. Any elements that can not be changed falsify a theory that predicts 100% system changeIt's not that they can't change. They change exactly the same way every other section of the genome does: via mutation. It's that changes to them are fatal for any individual unlucky enough to experience that particular mutation, so the mutation never has the opportunity to spread into the wider population. Mutations that are beneficial, neutral, or have a delayed negative effect, on the other hand, do have the opportunity to spread into the wider population.
Your explanation does not explain how, it explains how not. Saying the reason why these life essential sequences are frozen, is because if they were not frozen (as luck would have it) the species would not survive, is not a mechanism that demonstrates how the UCE can evolve into functional sequences. Its a mechanism that explains if and when (although never demonstrated) the UCE that code for the ribosomes evolve, the organism dies.
The sequences in the UCE that code for essential functions are never observed to change their sequences. This alone should tell you they are evolutionary frozen
And the fact that evolutionary science disagrees with you. They believe the sequences have been frozen since the first cells existed
"These ultra-conserved elements are long, they evolved rather rapidly, and they are now evolutionarily frozen. We don't know of a biomolecular mechanism that would explain them," Professor David Haussler
"The DNA sequences that code for ribosomal RNA contain long stretches of bases that are perfectly conserved throughout evolution. Unlike the ultra-conserved elements uncovered in this study, though, ribosomal RNA is ancient and is common to all species"""These ultra-conserved elements are long, they evolved rather rapidly, and they are now evolutionarily frozen" (bolding added).
Professor Haussler pretty plainly states that the UCE evolved - why do you insist they can't evolve and have existed as is since the first cell?Of course he does, he is an evolutionist, he must believe they evolved. However he has no observable evidence the UCE are subject to any current evolutionary mechanism. So he assumes they were subject to evolution in the past
All current evolutionary mechanism will not change the UCE. This we do know.
We have no evidence the UCE can be changed so it is by faith Haussler believes they evolved
And all eukaryote cells share some identical UCE. we know they have not changed
"The sequences in the UCE that code for essential functions are never observed to change their sequences. This alone should tell you they are evolutionary frozen"
I would think that the logistics of finding changes to the conserved sequences would be a fairly significant barrier to observing any. I mean, if you want to go picking through the genomes of miscarried fetuses, be my guest, but chances are, most mutations in such critical gene sequences never even make it past the blastocyst and gastrula phases and at that point any miscarriage will look like a slightly heavy menstrual cycle at most, so I'm not sure how you'd even go about identifying candidates to start looking for changes to the conserved sequences.
"Your explanation does not explain how, it explains how not."
Not all mutations are negative. The "how" is presumably the same way everything else evolved - minute positive or neutral changes spreading through the population and building up over hundreds of thousands, millions, or even billions of years of time. Eventually, something worked well enough for enough different ancestral organisms that it stuck around more or less unchanged in the majority of their descendents, just as a stable environment can result in creatures that show very little change over hundreds of millions of years, such as horseshoe crabs or sharks, while a rapidly changing environment results in far more rapid speciation.
We have evidence in mitochondrial DNA and various non-standard codon translations in different types of primitive single celled organisms that early life experimented with multiple different translation systems before the majority of organisms settled on the one in most common use today. It is not illogical to speculate that earlier forms of life may have experimented with even more basic functions. The first evidence of life on earth is about 3.7 billion years old, but the oldest undisputed proof of early life is 3 billion years old, the first eukaryotes didn't show up until around 1.5-2.5 billion years ago, and the first multicellular organisms only showed up about 1 billion years ago. That is a heck of a long time to spend hashing out the basics, with very little physical evidence surviving from the period to give scientists a clear indication of what was going on. As a result, speculation is all we have, but the fact that we don't have a definitive natural answer to the question of exactly when and how the conserved sequences evolved does not mean that a natural answer does not exist, and it certainly doesn't imply that supernatural involvement is the only possible solution."chances are, most mutations in such critical gene sequences never even make it past the blastocyst and gastrula phases"
That's what I mean when I say, the theory does not explain how, it explains how not. All evolutionary biologists today agree natural selection removes nonfunctional & fatal sequences from the gene pool (explains how not). The problem for methodological naturalism is selection is only observed to remove nonfunctional and less fit sequences. The theory can not explain by what mechanisms the conserved functional sequences got arranged in the fist place, and then (as luck would have it) become frozen. Selection only explains if and when conserved functional elements do become unfrozen, they are removed. A valid theory needs to explain how not how not. Luck is not a valid mechanism in a valid theory
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Arc … erved.html
"There is plenty of evidence that highly conserved sequences do perform vital functions," says Ahituv. "Indeed, locating noncoding sequences that have been unchanged by evolution is one of the main tools scientists use to find important functional elements in a genome."
"While it's conceivable that conserved sequences are somehow immune to mutations for reasons that have nothing to do with evolutionary pressures, the mechanism of such "sequence armoring" is hard to imagine. The 731-base pair sequence, uc467, should normally have accumulated some 334 nucleotide changes in the more than 80 million years that mice, rats, and humans have been evolving along separate paths."
====
"We have evidence in mitochondrial DNA and various non-standard codon translations in different types of primitive single celled organisms that early life experimented with multiple different translation systems before the majority of organisms settled on the one in most common use today"
There are many variations in the DNA code. In fact In 2011 at an origins of life symposium [The Great Debate What Is Life] Craig Venter had to school Dawkins that still believed all life shared the same DNA code. Atheism's high priest does not even have his facts straight.
And all these variations are functional. Show me the evidence that nonfunctional or suboptimal sequences ever existed. I have never seen it. I'M sure you understand information theory and that what determines if something is "information" or not is if both the sender and receiver agree on the meaning. Functional variations in the DNA codes is how we know the DNA codes are 100% arbitrary and true information systems. One code will not be understood by organism with a different code. Venter understand this well
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15563395
Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life.
"Where and how did the complex genetic instruction set programmed into DNA come into existence? The genetic set may have arisen elsewhere and was transported to the Earth. If not, it arose on the Earth, and became the genetic code in a previous lifeless, physical-chemical world. Even if RNA or DNA were inserted into a lifeless world, they would not contain any genetic instructions unless each nucleotide selection in the sequence was programmed for function. Even then, a predetermined communication system would have had to be in place for any message to be understood at the destination Transcription and translation would not necessarily have been needed in an RNA world. Ribozymes could have accomplished some of the simpler functions of current protein enzymes. Templating of single RNA strands followed by retemplating back to a sense strand could have occurred. But this process does not explain the derivation of "sense" in any strand. "Sense" means algorithmic function achieved through sequences of certain decision-node switch-settings. These particular primary structures determine secondary and tertiary structures. Each sequence determines minimum-free-energy folding propensities, binding site specificity, and function. Minimal metabolism would be needed for cells to be capable of growth and division. All known metabolism is cybernetic--that is, it is programmatically and algorithmically organized and controlled'
======
"It is not illogical to speculate that earlier forms of life may have experimented with even more basic functions."
That's all it is, a speculation. Cyanobacterium is the first life (that I'M aware of) to show up in the fossil record and has remained unchanged
"The group [Cyanobacterium] shows what is probably the most extreme conservatism of morphology of any organisms" berkeley.edu
No morphology in 3.5by.
Darwinian evolutions problem is the entire fossil record show this same degree of sudden appearance and stasis. Combine rampant stasis with a myriad of living fossils all through Cambrian and the rest of the fossil record, and this equates fatality for evolution. Gould had to invent P.E. (with no mechanisms to show for it) just to keep the morphology theory from falsification.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17708768
The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution.
"Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable."
========
It amazes me how Darwinian evolution is held on to so vehemently even after every prediction it has made has been repeatedly falsified. Molecular biology has the theory all but publicly falsified. And now large portions of the genome are proving to be not subject to evolutionary mechanisms. And the only excuse evolutionary science has for them is "if they were not precisely frozen, the species would not survive"
And today we can observe all the mechanism for genetic change and we know they do not effect the conserved elements. And we also know most of the conserved elements are located in the non-coding (formally predicted to be JUNK DNA) regions. "JUNK DNA" is proving to be the command and control center of the genome.
Darwinian evolution stands or falls on forward evolving functional protein folds. Yet evidence of morphology being produced by evolving protein folds is nonexistent. Protein misfolding (Darwinian evolution) causes less fit organisms, how ironic.
"From the data available at this time, it would seem that protein structure has been much more conserved during evolution than genetically based amino acid sequences," Chemist Sung-Hou Kim, Berkeley
The ONLY REASON why Darwinian evolution has not been falsified, is because there is nothing to replace it with other that I.D. And the Godless liberals in science will not allow that.Don't talk such utter rubbish - ID has no scientific validity, no credibility and is only blabbered about by those without enough reasoning power to see beyond the grandfather was a monkey stupidity. Posting up fallacious arguments to appear as though there is some validity in your basic idea is just lying for jesus twaddle.
I don't think expressing one's opinions is "lying for Jesus." I guess I'm one of those rare Christians who believes in evolution, however. We're still evolving.
No you are not rare - most christians have no time for ID.
The only thing created is ID itself, by those people who would like to control others - the poster is cut and pasting streams of pseudo-science as though there is scientific validity in this - which is there is not - and this action, like many others that deliberately set out to make more people stupid, is something the proponents are aware of - they are lying for jesus.
That response is absolutely meaningless in a debate. Unless you specifically address my points and show evidence why they are incorrect, your response euqates an emotional rant
"That's what I mean when I say, the theory does not explain how, it explains how not. All evolutionary biologists today agree natural selection removes nonfunctional & fatal sequences from the gene pool (explains how not). The problem for methodological naturalism is selection is only observed to remove nonfunctional and less fit sequences. The theory can not explain by what mechanisms the conserved functional sequences got arranged in the fist place, and then (as luck would have it) become frozen. Selection only explains if and when conserved functional elements do become unfrozen, they are removed. A valid theory needs to explain how not how not. Luck is not a valid mechanism in a valid theory"
The "how" is the same way everything else evolved - minute changes building up over vast periods of time. Since we do have evidence that some conserved sequences (such as those coding translations) did change and evolve in the distant past, why do you assume that others didn't? That seems very strange and inconsistent to me.
It's even stranger in light of the vast time scales involved. We have a period of at least 700 million years where scientists are pretty sure that life existed on Earth but have no undisputed physical evidence of it. That is a period longer than the existence of terrestrial plants (let alone terrestrial animals!) where we have next to no proof of what was going on. Sure, some conserved sequences could have sprung into existence fully formed and remained completely unchanged for the next 700 million years, but I think it's pretty unlikely.
As for luck, of course it plays a role. You can have the most beneficial mutation ever in your genetic code and it still won't do you (or, more importantly, your species) any good if an enormous rock falls on your head when you're a kid and you die without ever passing it on. The process of evolution is a mix of random chance (i.e. the mutation rate in eukaryotes and bacteria is roughly 10−8 per base pair per generation and of those, some will be beneficial, some harmful, and some neutral), luck (even beneficial mutations may not ensure your survival to the age of reproduction), and natural selection, which ensures that beneficial mutations tend to spread more widely through the gene pool than harmful ones.
"And all these variations are functional. Show me the evidence that nonfunctional or suboptimal sequences ever existed. I have never seen it."
If you manage to invent a time machine that can go back, say, 3.5 billion years, I'm sure there are many, many scientists who would be interested in helping you find some. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
"That's all it is, a speculation. Cyanobacterium is the first life (that I'M aware of) to show up in the fossil record and has remained unchanged.
Darwinian evolutions problem is the entire fossil record show this same degree of sudden appearance and stasis."
Strictly speaking, cyanobacteria are the most genetically diverse organisms on Earth, so I'm not sure that it would be accurate to claim that they've remained unchanged for the last 2.8+ billion years (just to name one example, there's a species that lives exclusively in the fur of sloths, which obviously did not exist 2.8 billion years ago), but for the sake of argument, I'll agree and point out that you seem to labor under the misapprehension that evolution predicts constant change. It does not. If an organism or type of organism is well adapted to its particular niche, it will experience very little selective pressure and hence the rate of evolutionary change will slow or stop because mutations will be consistently selected against within the population. This is what happened (sort of) with cyanobacteria, and with plenty of other ancient creatures such as horseshoe crabs and sharks that have changed little in hundreds of millions of years. At the genome level, it's likely what happened to conserved sequences as well. Evolution is not a continual progression to some "higher" life form, it's a progression towards more and more perfect adaptation to one's niche, whether that niche is a primitive bacteria hanging out in the fur of a sloth or a brainy ape fashioning hunting spears on the savanna.“Minute changes building up over vast periods of time” are not observable in the fossil record, why do you think P.E. was invented?. What is strange is by what grounds (other than dogmatic faith in naturalism) do you assume these highly conserved elements were at one time subject to evolutionary change?, it is your faith in naturalism that allows you to believe this. The thinking public will no longer stand for dogmatic assumptions as valid mechanisms in a theory.
Show me the evidence of any conserved element evolving. Slight variations do not equate a transition took place. I can take a living fossil and "prove evolution" by putting slightly similar species on both sides of it to assert the similarities equate a transition took place. And if I do it with enough arrogance I can get many emotionally led people to also believe a transition took place.
The problem is all three of my very similar looking species have identical looking counter parts in the fossil record, they didn't change their morphology. Protein folds don't evolve like Darwinian evolution predicted. Protein miss-folding (essentially Darwinian evolution) causes sickness and disease. The proteins naturally resist evolutionary change for this very reason.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/arch … topstories
"Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective"
"A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order"
And as molecular biology is proving, Darwin's tree of life assumption of. genotypes and phenotypes relationships closely matching thus establishing testable evidence a transition may have taken place, has been repeatedly falsified. Humans share more genes with 500myo coral, than we do with many other post Cambrian species. What do you think the Altenberg 16 meeting was about. ? The Neo-Darwinian mechanism are now quietly known to be false.
http://bostonreview.net/BR22.1/shapiro.html
“It has been a surprise to learn how thoroughly cells protect themselves against precisely the kinds of accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of evolutionary variability" Geneticist James Shapiro
Real science can not get away with "were pretty sure this took place" in a theoretical formula. And although I'M not a young earth creationist, I do believe in a "pre-Adamic race" (Neanderthals) I do not agree on the age of the earth.
http://www.physorg.com/news140266859.html
"The precise timing of the origin of life on Earth and the changes in life during the past 4.5 billion years has been a subject of great controversy for the past century. The principal indicator of the amount of organic carbon produced by biological activity traditionally used is the ratio of the less abundant isotope of carbon, 13C, to the more abundant isotope, 12C"
"While this idea appears to be sound over the last 150 million years or so, prior to this time there are no open oceanic sediment records which record the 13C/12C ratio, and therefore, geologists are forced to use materials associated with carbonate platforms or epicontinental seas"
""This study is a major step in terms of rethinking how geologists interpret variations in the 13C/12C ratio throughout Earth's history. If the approach does not work over the past 10 million years, then why would it work during older time periods?" said Swart"
And there are many quotes that state the fossils date the strata and visa versa. The dating method is circular based on the dogmatic presupposition of Darwinian evolution. Evolution can not be true if there is not many billions of years for evolution to take place, and even that has been statistically dis-proven by protein folding problems.
I don't disagree, its the mechanisms and extent of the evolution I.D.ers have a problem with. The mechanisms are not selection of the luckiest randomness and the changes are not radical. I believe the evidence clearly shows this. Darwinian evolution is very similar to a religious dogma in that its believers will never allow it to be falsified. Every prediction Neo-Darwinians have made has been falsified, Evolutionarily science will not let go. They will invent some unfalsifiable quantum observer hypothesis before they let the theory be falsified.
In fact absence of evidence very well can mean evidence of absence, and you know this. What your saying is it does not have to be a duck just because it looks just like one, without acknowledging it very well can be what it appears to be. Falsification allows you to look for reason why things don't have to be what they appear to be, even in the face of blatant verification.
Darwinian evolution stands or falls on morphology not genetic diversity. If morphology is falsified Darwinian evolution/methodological naturalism is falsified.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/bacteriafr.html
''cyanobacterial cells, from the Bitter Springs Chert of northern Australia (about 1 billion years old). Very similar cyanobacteria are alive today; in fact, most fossil cyanobacteria can almost be referred to living genera ..The group shows what is probably the most extreme conservatism of morphology of any organisms.''
You believe your ancestor was this cyanobacteria. This is where your origins of spices theory starts. The theory can be verified or falsified at this level. We can mutate and select bacteria DNA 24 hours a day, and with genome sequencing and PCs we can simulate billions of years of errors & selection. what do you think would happen if the theory had to prove its self in this manner?.
The theory of Darwinian evolution could be falsified very quickly by evolutionary experimentation on the single cells. If single cells refuse to change their protein folds at all costs, the theory is falsified. This is why the tests for falsification are never conductance. The theory would very quickly be falsified
That is an excuse why we observe no evidence of a morphological transition. Selective pressures merely acts on preexisting genes. Selective pressures are never observed to create new functional genes upon demand. Also its not only the genes that need to evolve, but the epigenetic code.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 134159.htm
“Epigenetic code is a series of chemical switches that is added onto our DNA in order to ensure that the cells in our body can form different types of tissue, for example liver and skin, despite having identical DNA genetic code.”
“When DNA is copied from cell to cell, it is essential that the epigenetic code is also copied accurately. If not, a liver cell may divide into another type of cell, such as a nerve or eye cell. A breakdown in this system might also mean that a gene for cell growth is accidentally switched on, for example, leading to unregulated cell growth and the development of tumours.”
Regulation of Transcription and Gene Expression in Eukaryotes: By: Theresa Phillips, Ph.D.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpag … on-in-1086
“Multicellular eukaryotes have a much larger genome than prokaryotes, which is organized into multiple chromosomes with greater sequence complexity. Many eukaryotic species carry genes with the same sequences as other plants and animals. In addition, the same DNA sequences (though not the same proteins) are found within all of an organism's diploid, nucleated cells, even though these cells form tissues with drastically different appearances, properties, and functions. Why then, is there such great variation among and within such organisms? Quite simply, the way in which different genes are turned on and off in specific cells generates the variety we observe in nature. In other words, specific functions of different cell types are generated through differential gene regulation”
This is why Darwin tree of life is in complete disarray. The prediction that similar looking species would have similar looking genes and similar looking sequences is far from reality. We share more similarities with mice than orangutangs and more with similarities with coral than with other supposedly “closer related species”
Darwinian evolution has a serious conundrum on its hands, and the general public is not aware of it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/4312 … tists.html
"He [biologist Michael Rose] says biology is vastly more complex than we thought and facing up to this complexity will be as scary as the conceptual upheavals physicists had to take on board in the early 20th century”"Minute changes building up over vast periods of time" are not observable in the fossil record"
Yes, they are.
"What is strange is by what grounds (other than dogmatic faith in naturalism) do you assume these highly conserved elements were at one time subject to evolutionary change?, it is your faith in naturalism that allows you to believe this. The thinking public will no longer stand for dogmatic assumptions as valid mechanisms in a theory."
Who's being dogmatic? I am agnostic on the question of ID and admit that it's possible that something might have brought these highly conserved sequences into existence fully formed. I think it's unlikely, but I admit that it's possible. You're the one clinging to the dogmatic assumption that because we don't have physical evidence of their natural evolution, it is impossible that they evolved naturally, despite the fact that we do know that other sequences that are conserved in modern organisms DID evolve in the distant past.
"Show me the evidence of any conserved element evolving."
I talked about it in one of my previous posts.
"I can take a living fossil and "prove evolution" by putting slightly similar species on both sides of it to assert the similarities equate a transition took place."
Dude, the science of common descent is considerably more advanced than sticking a couple of fossils that look similar next to each other and claiming they must be related!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
"It has been a surprise to learn how thoroughly cells protect themselves against precisely the kinds of accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of evolutionary variability"
Excuse me, but that is Biology 101. High school Biology 101. Everybody knows that cells have multiple mechanisms to protect against mutations. However, these mechanisms don't always work. If they did, nobody would ever get cancer, for starters.
The rate of mutations that survive these mechanisms in sex cells has been so well studied in some types of organisms that we are able to predict the statistical likelihood of mutation to any given base pair per generation to a fairly high degree of accuracy.
"I do not agree on the age of the earth."
Of course not.
By the way, the age of the Earth was not determined via carbon dating or biostratigraphy. Just FYI.
"In fact absence of evidence very well can mean evidence of absence, and you know this."
Sure. I admitted it in both my current post and my previous one. Now I'm admitting it a third time. In light of this, it amuses me that you're repeatedly accusing me of being dogmatic and closed-minded, when you're the one who absolutely refuses to consider alternate possibilities.
"Darwinian evolution stands or falls on morphology not genetic diversity. If morphology is falsified Darwinian evolution/methodological naturalism is falsified."
I'm on the verge of cracking out my trusty Inigo Montoya .gifs but I guess you must be talking about molecular morphology, because if you're talking about biological morphology that sentence doesn't make a lick of sense.
"You believe your ancestor was this cyanobacteria."
Nah. I'm not positive, because my interests lie more post-Cambrian than pre, but I believe it's still under dispute whether Bacteria, Archaea, and Eukarya all came from the same common ancestor or came from several different ancestors. Either way, cyanobacteria are a different branch on the evolutionary tree.
"The theory of Darwinian evolution could be falsified very quickly by evolutionary experimentation on the single cells. If single cells refuse to change their protein folds at all costs, the theory is falsified."
Obviously they don't. Again, if they did nobody would ever get cancer. And just like mutations in general, the majority of changes in proteins are harmful, but a minority are neutral or even beneficial.
"That is an excuse why we observe no evidence of a morphological transition. Selective pressures merely acts on preexisting genes. Selective pressures are never observed to create new functional genes upon demand."
Straw man argument. Selective pressure is not supposed to create new functional genes at all, let alone upon demand. New genes are created by mutation. Selective pressure only controls which of these genes spreads through the population.
"This is why Darwin tree of life is in complete disarray. The prediction that similar looking species would have similar looking genes and similar looking sequences is far from reality. We share more similarities with mice than orangutangs and more with similarities with coral than with other supposedly "closer related species"
I don't know where you got that "fact," but it's wrong. Humans and orangutans are about 95-98% genetically identical, humans and mice about 85%. As for humans and corals, I haven't heard any reliable statistics, but contrary to popular belief, corals are animals, so somewhere back there in the mists of time we do share a common ancestor with them. I'd be more surprised if we didn't share a bunch of genes with them."Yes they are" is a non answer. That statement is meaningless unless it is verified by evidence.
I give you information from your own evolutionary sources and you refuse to accept it. Darwinian evolutionists live in a dogmatic delusion. You have established your naturalistic hypothesis based on your disbelief in God (what you don't know), rather from observable evidence in Darwinian evolution (what you do know).
============
"Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome ... brings terrible distress. ... They may get a little bigger or bumpier. But they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, it's not evolution so you don't talk about it". Gould, Stephen Jay
"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..." (Gould, Stephen Jay., The Panda's Thumb, 1980, pp. 238-239.)
"The evidence we find in the geologic record is not nearly as compatible with Darwinian natural selection as we would like it to be. Darwin was completely aware of this. He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would.... Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ...ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information." DAVID M. RAUP, Univ. Chicago; Chicago Field Mus. of F.M.O.N.H.B., Vol.50, p.35
"A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general. these have not been found-yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks." Raup, David M. [Professor of Geology, University of Chicago], "Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, Vol. 213, No. 4505, 17 July 1981, p.289
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17708768
The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution.
"Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal...In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable"
============
Chemical reactions creating a single cell with highly conserved proteins, multiple information system, 50 molecular machines (over 300 total) and 600 genes needed just for basic cell division, is so beyond rational thought, it is only the liberal philosopher that can accept such a ridiculous concept.
And if you believe a "intelligent designer" could exist, why would you then chose undirected chemical reactions that have never shown the ability to create fixed functional parameters as the creator of the cell?. This is like someone that believes a PC programer could exist but yet chose a non intelligent source as the creator of a complex program. Not rational.
You have repeatedly asserted we have evidence of conserved elements evolving, but have yet to produce it. Show me the evidence of the transition?. There is no observable evidence of a transition from one state of (formally) conserved functional elements to another state conserved functional elements.
What you have are similarities in sequences/genes and the ASSUMPTION a transition took place. However no empirical evidence of an actual transition exists.
All of your "common decent" references have been falsified. If you care to debate that topic alone Its easily proven, but its extensive to read and too long for this post. Here are just a few references.
"For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change”
==========
"Phylogenetic incongruities [conflicts] can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves."
- Carl Woese "The Universal Ancestor," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 95:6854-9859 (June, 1998)
==========
As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology.
- Patterson et al., "Congruence between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol 24, pg. 179 (1993)
========
In the article "Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?" by Elizabeth Pennisi, She says
"When full DNA sequences opened the way to comparing many different genes in different organisms, the comparisons proved confounding. Rather than clarifying the tree that seeks to show how life evolved, they often produced new trees that differ from the traditional tree and conflict with each other as well."
=============
"It has been a surprise to learn how thoroughly cells protect themselves against precisely the kinds of accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of evolutionary variability"
Your problem should be clearly evident. There are multiple highly accurate error correction mechanisms for a reason. Because when they are not accurate sickness & diseases occur. Give me just one example of a break down in the error corrections mechanisms creating a new beneficial (never seen before) protein fold. Mutations creating new functional beneficial protein folds only exists in your imagination. Its never observed.
If you believe a intelligent designer could exist, why then would you believe an undirected process created the cell and species?. A mind is proving to be the easiest and only way to get specific sequences arranged. The cell is so phenomenally complicated, with a myriad of conserved (unable to evolve) functional elements, and chemical reactions have never shown the ability to do what is claimed, yet a mind has repeatedly show the ability to do these things. You cling to naturalism for one of two reason, your disbelief in God, or a complete lack of critical thinking.
"Darwinian evolution stands or falls on morphology not genetic diversity. If morphology is falsified Darwinian evolution/methodological naturalism is falsified."
No clue what your talking about. What is “molecular morphology” supposed to be?. Darwinian evolution stands or falls on observable morphology via new functional protein folds. The fossil record disproves this morphological change ever took place. No evidence what so ever of wings growing or fins morphing into legs etc.. And there are a plethora of references that state this
And for future reference, if your going to debate me you must provide references. Whats the point of threatening to “crack out” your references?, Just do it.
"You believe your ancestor was this cyanobacteria."
That is nonsensical. The “oldest fossil” (depth does not equate age. “Stratigraphic Distribution of Vertebrate Fossil Footprints Compared with Body Fossils” Leonard Brand and James Florence,) that I know of is the cyanobacteria, therefore everything in Cambrian would have came from the cyanobacteria. If we find something older that the cyanobacteria then science must conclude the cyanobacteria came from it. Imagining unrelated cells independently evolving along side the cyanobacteria, but are not evident in the fossil record is just hopeful imagination and has no place in theory.
"The theory of Darwinian evolution could be falsified very quickly by evolutionary experimentation on the single cells. If single cells refuse to change their protein folds at all costs, the theory is falsified."
Sickness and disease being created from protein folding errors does not help the case for Darwinian evolution. Why is it you continue to bring up examples of the Darwinian mechanisms creating the less fit when evolution requires the opposite to take place.
"That is an excuse why we observe no evidence of a morphological transition. Selective pressures merely acts on preexisting genes. Selective pressures are never observed to create new functional genes upon demand."
I agree the environment pressures pre-existing genes to be turned off or on, however evolution absolutely requires evidence of new functional genes being created. Switching (and swapping) currently existing functional genes off & on does not validate Darwinian evolutionary. Creating new functional genes by natural mechanisms must be demonstrated. How do naturalist think they can get away with swapping/selecting pre written information and still claim naturalism
"This is why Darwin tree of life is in complete disarray. The prediction that similar looking species would have similar looking genes and similar looking sequences is far from reality. We share more similarities with mice than orangutangs and more with similarities with coral than with other supposedly "closer related species"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 … o-men.html
“Mice and men share about 97.5 per cent of their working [protein coding] DNA, just one per cent less than chimps and humans. The new estimate is based on the comparison of mouse chromosome 16 with human DNA. Previous estimates had suggested mouse-human differences as high as 15 per cent.”
“However, Tim Hubbard, head of genome analysis at the Sanger Institute in Cambridge, UK, is sceptical about the significance of the 2.5 per cent difference. He thinks that the genes might in fact all be identical and that differences between species might arise solely through divergence in the "regulatory regions" which switch other genes on and off.”
======
http://articles.sfgate.com/2002-12-05/n … se-genes/3
“Mice and humans both have about 30,000 genes - and share 99% of them - but the mouse genome is shorter than that of humans (2.5 billion letters compared with 2.9 billion) -- -- About 1,200 new genes have been discovered in the human because of mouse-human genome comparisons.”
========
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3 … ealed.html
“With 99 per cent of our genes now confirmed to match that of Mus musculus, geneticists can find out how human genes work with experiments on their favourite lab animal.”
===========
Of course genes have little relevance . (another failed prediction by evolution) It is how those genes are switched on and off that determines the cell types. This is why humans sharing more genes with coral means nothing, nor does humans sharing genes with a chimps or mice. Its the epigenetic codes & non coding regions that controls cell type and growth. So its the epigenetic code similarities that must be used to determine relationships
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpag … on-in-1086
Regulation of Transcription and Gene Expression in Eukaryotes
By: Theresa Phillips, Ph.D
“it is estimated that the human genome encodes approximately 25,000 genes, about the same number as that for corn and nearly twice as many as that for the common fruit fly. Even more interesting is the fact that those 25,000 genes are encoded in about 1.5% of the genome. So, what exactly does the other 98.5% of our DNA do? While many mysteries remain about what all of that extra sequence is for, we know that it does contain complex instructions that direct the intricate turning on and off of gene transcription.”
“Multicellular eukaryotes have a much larger genome than prokaryotes, which is organized into multiple chromosomes with greater sequence complexity. Many eukaryotic species carry genes with the same sequences as other plants and animals. In addition, the same DNA sequences (though not the same proteins) are found within all of an organism's diploid, nucleated cells, even though these cells form tissues with drastically different appearances, properties, and functions. Why then, is there such great variation among and within such organisms? Quite simply, the way in which different genes are turned on and off in specific cells generates the variety we observe in nature. In other words, specific functions of different cell types are generated through differential gene regulation.”
============
http://www.physorg.com/news139665103.html
Structure Of Key Epigenetics Component Identified
“Epigenetic code is a series of chemical switches that is added onto our DNA in order to ensure that the cells in our body can form different types of tissue, for example liver and skin, despite having identical DNA genetic code.”
“When DNA is copied from cell to cell, it is essential that the epigenetic code is also copied accurately. If not, a liver cell may divide into another type of cell, such as a nerve or eye cell. A breakdown in this system might also mean that a gene for cell growth is accidentally switched on, for example, leading to unregulated cell growth and the development of tumours”
Darwinian evolutions “tree of life” predictions are falling apart. The similar looking species do not have the similar DNA sequences or genes.You're seriously trying to refute my arguments with a bunch of quotes from the early 80's? LOL. I realize it's hard to believe for someone still clinging to a belief system developed 6000 years ago by illiterate sheep herders, but science moves fast. Statements made 30 years ago are already laughably out-of-date
"And if you believe a "intelligent designer" could exist, why would you then chose undirected chemical reactions that have never shown the ability to create fixed functional parameters as the creator of the cell?."
Several reasons:
1. There is no undisputed evidence of an intelligent designer.
2. We do have evidence of other parts of the genome (now equally conserved) evolving.
3. We have roughly two billion years of Earth history where we have almost no physical evidence of what was going on. That is a hell of a long time to experiment around and get things right. It took only a few hundred million to get from single-celled organisms to dinosaurs.
"You have repeatedly asserted we have evidence of conserved elements evolving, but have yet to produce it."
Because I talked about it three or four posts ago and it's considerably less trouble for you to go back and reread my posts than it is for me to type it up again.
Blah, blah, more references to 20 year old papers and out-of-date theories....
"Your problem should be clearly evident. There are multiple highly accurate error correction mechanisms for a reason. Because when they are not accurate sickness & diseases occur. Give me just one example of a break down in the error corrections mechanisms creating a new beneficial (never seen before) protein fold. Mutations creating new functional beneficial protein folds only exists in your imagination. Its never observed."
http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008 … t%20al.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 … 03444.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/98/20/11388.abstract
Speaking of Lenski, you may want to read the following exchange between Lenski and the founder of Conservapedia, which may help clear up some of your curious misconceptions about the importance of "new" protein folds:
http://www.badscience.net/2008/06/all-t … st-pwnage/
A more familiar example is the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria and pesticide/herbicide resistance in weeds and pests. Some of these have been demonstrated to be natural selection arising from already existing variation, others the result of new mutations. For example:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC90364/
"No clue what your talking about. What is “molecular morphology” supposed to be?. Darwinian evolution stands or falls on observable morphology via new functional protein folds. The fossil record disproves this morphological change ever took place."
Seriously? Okay, if you don't know what molecular morphology is, what references can you provide me that you're not just doing what the panda says and copy-pasting a bunch of documents that you don't even understand because somebody told you once that they refute evolution?
"No evidence what so ever of wings growing or fins morphing into legs etc.. And there are a plethora of references that state this"
From when, 1980?
There's actually been some extremely interesting discoveries in the last five years or so dealing with the transitions from fins to limbs and limbs to wings. You can find a bunch of write-ups on sciencedaily.com.
"And for future reference, if your going to debate me you must provide references. Whats the point of threatening to “crack out” your references?, Just do it."
LOL, okay. So you don't know what molecular morphology means or what a .gif is. Good to know.
"That is nonsensical. The “oldest fossil” (depth does not equate age. “Stratigraphic Distribution of Vertebrate Fossil Footprints Compared with Body Fossils” Leonard Brand and James Florence,) that I know of is the cyanobacteria, therefore everything in Cambrian would have came from the cyanobacteria. If we find something older that the cyanobacteria then science must conclude the cyanobacteria came from it. Imagining unrelated cells independently evolving along side the cyanobacteria, but are not evident in the fossil record is just hopeful imagination and has no place in theory."
What? That's like saying that because dinosaurs existed before humans, humans must be descended from dinosaurs. It makes no sense whatsoever and fits with neither fossil nor genetic evidence.
"Sickness and disease being created from protein folding errors does not help the case for Darwinian evolution. Why is it you continue to bring up examples of the Darwinian mechanisms creating the less fit when evolution requires the opposite to take place."
You should post a sign on your computer for these discussions, just to remind yourself of Bio 101: ALL MUTATIONS ARE NOT HARMFUL
"I agree the environment pressures pre-existing genes to be turned off or on, however evolution absolutely requires evidence of new functional genes being created. Switching (and swapping) currently existing functional genes off & on does not validate Darwinian evolutionary. Creating new functional genes by natural mechanisms must be demonstrated."
Yes, but new functional genes are created by mutation, NOT by selective pressure as you claimed in your earlier post. I posted some evidence of new functional genes being created above.
"Mice and humans both have about 30,000 genes - and share 99% of them - but the mouse genome is shorter than that of humans (2.5 billion letters compared with 2.9 billion)"
Ah, I see what you did there. You're basing it off the mouse and I'm basing it off the human. Humans share about 99% of the mouse genome, but mice share only about 85% of the human genome. Orangutans share about about 95-98% of the human genome. Therefore, orangutans and humans are more genetically similar.There is no undisputed evidence for many scientific theories. Logical inferences are used all the time in science to fill in the lack of verifiable data. So under your logic because there is no undisputed evidence of any other life forms existing in this universe, other life forms can not exist, Correct?
If not, then tell me by what method of reasoning do you use to accept “small life” existing, but reject “BIF LIFE” from existing?. There is not one reason based in critical thinking that prohibits a “God-like” life form from existing nor is there a reason that would make a God life even highly improbable. All arguments against Gods existence are philosophical and not based in logic or reason
i.e .. “If I was God “these things” would not be happening, but because “these things” are happening, this strongly suggests God does not exist”
Which logically fails because it is impossible for you to reason as the thing (the mind of a God) you are attempting to reason for. Just as an amoeba can not reason as a human.
Even the de novo “evolution” observed is always shown to originate from a pre- existent template direction or complex calculating mechanisms and not from the Darwinian mechanisms that I asked for. The single cell its self is proving to be a “sentient being” with the abilities to communicate and calculate and make decisions
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18053935
Bacteria are small but not stupid: cognition, natural genetic engineering and socio bacteriology. Shapiro JA.
“Forty years' experience as a bacterial geneticist has taught me that bacteria possess many cognitive, computational and evolutionary capabilities unimaginable in the first six decades of the twentieth century.....bacteria continually monitor their external and internal environments and compute functional outputs based on information provided by their sensory apparatus....Examination of colony development and organization led me to appreciate how extensive multicellular collaboration is among the majority of bacterial species. Contemporary research in many laboratories on cell-cell signaling, symbiosis and pathogenesis show that bacteria utilise sophisticated mechanisms for intercellular communication and even have the ability to commandeer the basic cell biology of 'higher' plants and animals to meet their own needs. This remarkable series of observations requires us to revise basic ideas about biological information processing and recognise that even the smallest cells are sentient beings”
======
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVfmUfr8VPA Bonnie Bassler: The secret, social lives of bacteria
Bonnie Bassler has an interesting video on quorum sensing
=============
You believe selection of the luckiest randomness has “a hell of a long time to experiment and get things right”
The simplest cells algorithm far exceeds our own.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1208958/
Three subsets of sequence complexity and their relevance to biopolymeric information
“No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed?”
If this theory of the selection of the luckiest randomness can produce systems that far exceed our intelligently designed systems, why cant this theory prove its self valid in any other application?. Because once functional arrangements are established, they must somehow magically disengaged from evolutionary mechanism without the aid of intelligent foresight. Evolutionary theory has no explanation for this other than luck, or the anthropic principle which explains nothing
============
"In addition, there is skepticism that 3 new and useful proteins appeared in the colony around generation 20,000." We make no such claim anywhere in our paper, nor do I think it is correct. Proteins do not "appear out of the blue", Lenski
"From actual experimental results it can easily be calculated that the odds of finding a folded protein (by random point mutations to an existing protein) are about 1 in 10 to the 65 power (Sauer, MIT)
The Lenskis experiments did not need or create new protein folds, changes of the Darwinian nature do require radically new functional protein folds to be created de novo. And no one knows what kind of intelligent manipulation Lenski could have been doing behind closed doors
"By examining the DNA sequence of the E. coli in the neighborhood surrounding the IS [insertion sequence] elements, the investigators saw that several genes involved in central metabolism were knocked out, as well as some cell wall synthesis genes and several others. In subsequent work, Cooper et al. (2001) discovered that twelve of twelve cell lines showed adaptive IS-mediated deletions of their rbs operon, which is involved in making the sugar ribose. Thus, the adaptive mutations that were initially tracked down all involved loss-of-FCT." Behe
And your other examples of “conserved genes” are speculative, science assumes conservation from evolutionary presuppositions & identical sequences. And I never said 100% of the genome was conserved, I said there are adaptive mechanisms that will allow for minor changes as the environment changes. The snake/ newts coevolution is an example.
=======
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 084911.htm
Evolution: When Are Genes 'Adventurous' And When Are They Conservative?
"When do cells hold on to specific gene sequences, and when do they allow evolution to experiment with them? Clearly, highly conserved genes fulfill some basic, universal function for all life, and changes in their sequences have drastic consequences, involving death or the inability to multiply
They found that a genetic "phrase" that regularly shows up in the promoter region of genes (the bit of genetic code responsible for activating the gene) contains a key to gene conservation: The expression of a gene that contains the sequence TATA in its promoter is more likely to have evolved than that of a gene that does not have TATA in its promoter.
In other words, the level of risk appears to written in the gene code, in a way that's similar to financial risk analysis"
====
However phenotypic plasticity and other fluctuations are proving to be temporary adaptive changes and not permanent static features in the species blueprint.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 … 03380.html
“A fundamental tenet of classical mendelian genetics is that allelic information is stably inherited from one generation to the next, resulting in predictable segregation patterns of differing alleles....Here we show that Arabidopsis plants homozygous for recessive mutant alleles of the organ fusion gene HOTHEAD 5 (HTH) can inherit allele-specific DNA sequence information that was not present in the chromosomal genome of their parents but was present in previous generations.....We postulate that these genetic restoration events are the result of a template-directed process that makes use of an ancestral RNA-sequence cache.”
======
"What is a gene?" (Roderic Guigo in Nature) [ 25/05/2006 ]Nature 441, 398-401 (25 May 2006) | doi:10.1038/441398a; Published online 24 May 2006
“ An eye-opening study last year raised the possibility that plants sometimes rewrite their DNA on the basis of RNA messages inherited from generations past. A study on page 469 of this issue suggests that a comparable phenomenon might occur in mice, and by implication in other mammals. If this type of phenomenon is indeed widespread, it "would have huge implications," says evolutionary geneticist Laurence Hurst
This is the genome reorganization first discovered by Barbra McClintocks work with maize, and is “template directed” evolution that can be called on as the environment changes. These are directed by sophisticated calculating mechanisms and not selection of lucky randomness.
===========
Also directed mutations do exist. Proven by Barry Hall and John Cairns among others
“In 1988, a team of Harvard biologists under the leadership of Joseph Cairns challenged the previous experiments performed by Luria and Delbruck in 1943. The early experiments seemed to prove that all mutations occurred randomly and none could be directed. Cairns group reasoned that in the earlier investigations the bacteria had been given too lethal a dose. They died before they could develop and propagate self-directed mutations."
"The Harvard experimenters used bacteria that could not grow in a specific environment because they lacked a working gene for an enzyme needed to metabolize the only available food. By genetic engineering, the bacteria were given versions of the necessary gene in which the coded message was, in effect, scrambled and therefore useless. Most, if not all, the bacteria failed to grow. After a few days they began thriving, feeding and reproducing. The distribution of bacteria colonies that survived showed that many bacteria had unscrambled the code and performed self-directed mutations that corrected the deficiency.”
“Barry G. Hall, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Rochester, NY, damaged cell DNA by two different forms of genetic damage. Mutations that might occur to repair either of the damages were not sufficient to benefit the cell. Both damages required repair for any benefit. In one of two 1991 experiments, which are too complicated and lengthy to describe in this space, he showed that the cells repaired themselves by producing the correct mutations at a rate billions of time sooner than if chance alone had caused the changes. (Washington Post, April 20, 1992, p.A3)”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1207782/
“Adaptive mutations are mutations that occur in nondividing or slowly dividing cells during prolonged nonlethal selection, and that appear to be specific to the challenge of the selection in the sense that the only mutations that arise are those that provide a growth advantage to the cell. The issue of the specificity has been controversial because it violates our most basic assumptions about the randomness of mutations with respect to their effect on the cell. ” Barry Hall
http://www.genetics.org/content/120/4/887.full.pdf
“These results suggest that spontaneous mutation is a more complex process than we have believed, that mutation rates are not biological constants, and that probabilities of mutation are modulated by normally encountered environmental factors. The second lession is that evolutionary biologists need to critically examine the assumptions that underlie methods of deducing evolutionary rates and of constructing phylogenetic trees. If the same mutation can, under appropriate selective conditions, occur in a large number of independent individuals (as occurs with excision of IS103 from within bglF), then individuals that share derived characters are not necessarily more closely related to each other than they are to other members of the population. If the probabilities of particular mutations are subject to environmental modulation, then the number of observed differences between two sequences may be completely unrelated to the time since they diverged.”
Sentient cells calculating the best move to keep the species alive is a feature one expects to see in complicated intelligently designed computational systems, not selection of the luckiest randomness.
=======================
Its not a random event. Its calculated by the cells with computational abilities
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 154945.htm
“A newly-made protein exits the ribosome through a tunnel that spans the ribosome body. Antibiotics can ward off an infection by attaching to the ribosome and preventing proteins the bacterium needs from moving through the tunnel.”
“Some bacteria have learned how to sense the presence of the antibiotic in the ribosomal tunnel, and in response, switch on genes that make them resistant to the drug, Mankin said. The phenomenon of inducible antibiotic expression was known decades ago, but the molecular mechanism was unknown”
===========
http://live.psu.edu/story/53048
"What had perplexed scientists is that the locations to which RlmN and Cfr add molecular tags are chemically different from all others to which tags routinely are appended, and should be resistant to modification by standard chemical methods," Booker said. "What we've discovered here is so exciting because it represents a truly new chemical mechanism for methylation. We now have a very clear chemical picture of a very clever mechanism for antibiotic resistance that some bacteria have evolved."
=========
Yes seriously, I have never heard the term and find little information on Google, other than its a study of changes caused at the molecular level in studying diseases. Are you talking about phenotypic plasticity or adaptive radiation?. Explain it to me in detail please.
========
I would prefer I don't have to search all the scientific sites to find
articles refuting my claims. If that's the case I might as well just debate myself since I'M the one doing all the research.
=======
Not at all like saying that. I started at the single cell level in which there is no evidence of anything existing that is genetically or morphologically simpler. You started at a much more diversified level in which a vast range of difference are observed in the lower strata"There is no undisputed evidence for many scientific theories. Logical inferences are used all the time in science to fill in the lack of verifiable data. So under your logic because there is no undisputed evidence of any other life forms existing in this universe, other life forms can not exist, Correct?"
Not at all. I told you, I'm agnostic on the question of God's existence and possible involvement in the creation of life. I don't think there's enough evidence either way to make a definitive decision. I therefore accept the possibility that a god or gods created life, just not the necessity. Based on my understanding of the current science, it is just as likely (and I would argue more likely) that there was a non-supernatural origin.
I'm not sure what the relative intelligence of bacteria has to do with any of these arguments. To me, that argues against an intelligent creator who regards humanity as his supreme creation, just as evidence of sophisticated language, tool making, and similar characteristics once believed to be the exclusive realm of humans in the animal kingdom does. I reject any God that would give humans dominion over other forms of sentient life - it smacks too much of slavery. Nor would I have much respect for such a deity's decision-making capabilities, given the appalling job humans have done so far of fulfilling our supposed stewardship responsibilities. Actually, if I were the deity in question, I'd have reversed that particular decision at least 2000 years ago, after watching human activities turn the forests and lush farmlands of the Fertile Crescent and Mediterranean into barren, salted desert.
"You believe selection of the luckiest randomness has “a hell of a long time to experiment and get things right”
The simplest cells algorithm far exceeds our own."
Yeah, assuming we don't wipe ourselves out, I'm pretty sure computer science will have progressed a bit 2 billion years from now. Even 700 million. I'm not sure that you're actually wrapping your head around what a vast scale of time that really is.
"If this theory of the selection of the luckiest randomness can produce systems that far exceed our intelligently designed systems, why cant this theory prove its self valid in any other application?. Because once functional arrangements are established, they must somehow magically disengaged from evolutionary mechanism without the aid of intelligent foresight. Evolutionary theory has no explanation for this other than luck, or the anthropic principle which explains nothing"
Random chance, luck, and natural selection working together, actually. This is considerably different than luck or chance working by themselves.
"The Lenskis experiments did not need or create new protein folds, changes of the Darwinian nature do require radically new functional protein folds to be created de novo."
No they don't, as Lenski specifically says. Way to miss the point.
"And your other examples of “conserved genes” are speculative, science assumes conservation from evolutionary presuppositions & identical sequences. And I never said 100% of the genome was conserved, I said there are adaptive mechanisms that will allow for minor changes as the environment changes. The snake/ newts coevolution is an example."
See, you do accept the existence of natural selection and evolution, you just refuse to call them that. How convenient for you.
"However phenotypic plasticity and other fluctuations are proving to be temporary adaptive changes and not permanent static features in the species blueprint."
The article you cite as "proof" of this statement doesn't say anything of the kind, first of all. Secondly, that's more or less the entire point of natural selection. Mutations turn up, get experimented with, and get rejected if unsuitable. Even if they're suitable at the time, they can become unsuitable a few thousand or million years later due to environmental change. For example, sharks have been around in very similar form for hundreds of millions of years, but there have been variations designed to take advantage of specific circumstances. When the oceans were warmer, for example, you had the 50+ foot megalodon hanging around eating whales for nearly 30 million years, but it couldn't handle cooler waters, so when the oceans cooled again and the surviving whale species mostly stayed north, it went extinct.
"Yes seriously, I have never heard the term and find little information on Google, other than its a study of changes caused at the molecular level in studying diseases. Are you talking about phenotypic plasticity or adaptive radiation?. Explain it to me in detail please."
Molecular morphology = study of how the shape and form of molecules affect their chemical properties, dynamic reconfiguration and interactions
Morphology in general talks more about the outward appearance of organisms, the form and structure of organs, and such. Your obsession with protein folds fits in much better with molecular morphology.
Additionally, arguing that evolution "rises or falls" on morphology is bizarre because the evolution of the form and structure of many organs is well understood. For example, we have a very good idea of the progression from fleshy three toed feet to bony hooves for equines, and (as mentioned in my earlier post) an increasingly good idea of the transitions from fins to limbs and limbs to wings developed.
"I would prefer I don't have to search all the scientific sites to find
articles refuting my claims."
That's why I suggested a specific one to search.
"Not at all like saying that. I started at the single cell level in which there is no evidence of anything existing that is genetically or morphologically simpler. You started at a much more diversified level in which a vast range of difference are observed in the lower strata"
But in order to claim that humans are descended from cyanobacteria, you have to ignore the genetic evidence just as thoroughly as you would to claim humans are descended from dinosaurs. Vertical gene transfer complicates the picture somewhat at this level of simplicity, but the cyanobacteria are more closely related to the eukaryotes that turned into plants. Humans belong to another branch. The fact that we don't have a fossil of the specific ancestor in question should not be surprising given that we're looking for a microscopic critter that lived 3.5 billion years ago or more. Cyanobacteria are peculiarly well suited to fossilization because they're large for bacteria and have an unusually thick cell wall, plus they live in large mat-like groups that catch sediment and fossilize comparatively easily.And I would argue the “super natural” does not exist. All of quantum physics would have been labeled super natural 150 years ago by science. Because humans are the only species on earth with the abilities to create music and literature, does this equate they are super natural abilities?. The term super natural is relevant to your own abilities. I see nothing “super natural” about an intellect capable of designing and building a cell, and specifically arranging DNA sequences for a specific species design. The super natural is a term used by those that can't comprehend natural orders of magnitude.
===========
Its points to the mechanisms behind evolutionary change. They are sentient mechanisms with decision making abilities that specifically directs evolutionary adaptations to the changing environment. This just creates another layer of problems for naturalists to explain. If evolution is directed by an apparent “sentient calculating mechanism”, the origins of this mechanisms must now be explained by natural unintelligent sources. Selection of the luckiest randomness needed no explanation of origins, however sentient calculating mechanisms have same splainin to do.
And naturalists have absolutely no valid explanation of the cells origins, yet arrogantly profess they KNOW the cell was not intelligently designed, even though the more we learn about biological systems, the more it mirrors many of our intelligently designed system’s,
The brains complexity http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2011spring/article8.html
In two of the references I gave you on the simple bacteria genomes, the cells have error correction mechanisms that reversed the lab induced scrambled DNA sequences back to the original functional sequences. This is only possible if there is an unadulterated “species blue print” the cells read from in order to revert the scrambled sequences back to a functional state within 24 hours.
Proteins also show this same resistance to change (evolution)
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/arch … topstories
“A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order.”
"The discovery answers an age-old question that has puzzled biologists since the time of Darwin: How can organisms be so exquisitely complex, if evolution is completely random, operating like a 'blind watchmaker'?" said Chakrabarti, an associate research scholar in the Department of Chemistry at Princeton. "Our new theory extends Darwin's model, demonstrating how organisms can subtly direct aspects of their own evolution to create order out of randomness."
“Wallace had suspected that certain systems undergoing natural selection can adjust their evolutionary course in a manner "exactly like that of the centrifugal governor of the steam engine, which checks and corrects any irregularities almost before they become evident." In Wallace's time, the steam engine operating with a centrifugal governor was one of the only examples of what is now referred to as feedback control. Examples abound, however, in modern technology, including cruise control in autos and thermostats in homes and offices”
“Chakrabarti and Rabitz analyzed these observations of the proteins' behavior from a mathematical standpoint, concluding that it would be statistically impossible for this self-correcting behavior to be random, and demonstrating that the observed result is precisely that predicted by the equations of control theory. By operating only at extremes, referred to in control theory as "bang-bang extremization," the proteins were exhibiting behavior consistent with a system managing itself optimally under evolution.”
=====================
Just as I predicted, your atheism is based in human philosophy. You don't believe in God because in your mind if God existed, he should be doing things exactly like you would if you were God. Which fails in reason because the tool in which you use (your imperfect and limited I.Q. & emotion) is incapable of predicting what a perfect unlimited all knowing being would do. Also how is it you can not see how incredibly boring it would be to create all life with identical attributes. You fail to realize there is an information system at work.
Darkness gives light half its glory, without the lower levels the upper levels can not be measured as such. You would not appreciate the summer breeze as much without the hard winter existing. Beauty does not exist without ugliness to compare it to. Without varying degrees of differences and changing goals life becomes boring and meaningless.
============
Selection is just the score keeper. Randomness & luck are the only mechanisms evolution has. Selection is nothing more than allowing the luckiest randomness to survive & continue, and not allowing the unluckiest randomness to survive & continue. Selection has no power other than letting the natural laws of chance, time & luck to proceed unhindered.
And I reiterate, any valid theory can be PC simulated if the variables are known. Why cant anyone simulate this theory of the selection of the luckiest randomness to test its validity?. It can be tested in single cells. Single cells can not tolerate their sequences radically changed. The only bacterial cells that survived their sequences changed (Darwinian evolution) were the bacteria that did a “system restore” to the previous functional arrangement. The tests for Darwinian evolution are failing.
====================
No I accept the controlled directed evolution that produced a beneficial variation and was allowed to happen without interference. Your magical mechanism of “selection” can do nothing other than to allow natural laws to continue unviolated. Its has no power other than saving the luckiest randomness.
============
The point I have been making is many genes thus DNA sequences for those genes are completely conserved. Some sequences allow for directed (not random) mutations for the organisms survival. You attempt to verify a theory that predicts 100% system change, by giving examples of slight changes in limited genes. The rest of the genes & sequences are highly conserved and defy your mechanism for change. Unable to evolve elements in an organism falsifies a theory that predicts all elements will be capable of change
You continue to look at the selection of prewritten information as evidence for naturalism and it is not. Your theory requires new genes with novel functions & new proteins to be created de novo. The naturalists theory starts with a single cell and very few genes (actually at abiogenesis) and must produce new functional genes by natural mechanism.
Science knows very well what will happen if they experiment with lab induced random copying errors with single celled genomes, the organism will not survive. Just as a PC program can not tolerate its source code constantly randomly modified.
=============
This evolutionary transition requires new protein folds all long the way.
"Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees" Glazko G, Veeramachaneni V, Nei M, Makałowski W.
So even though the primary structure of the protein coding sequences in DNA between humans & chimps have only a 1-3 % difference, the tertiary structure of those same proteins have an 80% difference. Morphologically we are similar to the chimp, however the proteins are not similar. For a chimp to evolve into a human he must change the structure of 80% of his proteins. I will not belabor you with the many “protein mis folding” quotes here. But if a chimp was to evolve into a human there must be innumerable amounts of sickly transitional along the way because this is what changes in proteins (Darwinian evolution) produce."Its points to the mechanisms behind evolutionary change. They are sentient mechanisms with decision making abilities that specifically directs evolutionary adaptations to the changing environment. This just creates another layer of problems for naturalists to explain. If evolution is directed by an apparent “sentient calculating mechanism”, the origins of this mechanisms must now be explained by natural unintelligent sources. Selection of the luckiest randomness needed no explanation of origins, however sentient calculating mechanisms have same splainin to do."
Not particularly. Are you familiar with the Gaia Hypothesis? Feedback control does not equal sentience.
"Just as I predicted, your atheism is based in human philosophy."
First, I am not atheist, as I have repeatedly stated. Second, I meant reject in the sense of refuse to worship, not reject in the sense of disbelieve in. The sentence was based on the assumption that such a being exists in the first place.
"Darkness gives light half its glory, without the lower levels the upper levels can not be measured as such. You would not appreciate the summer breeze as much without the hard winter existing. Beauty does not exist without ugliness to compare it to. Without varying degrees of differences and changing goals life becomes boring and meaningless."
Yes, it's true that one cannot appreciate the diversity of life without the existence of mass extinctions, but that doesn't make it any less suicidal for humanity to continue on its current path towards 50% or greater loss of currently existing biodiversity within the next 100-200 years.
"The only bacterial cells that survived their sequences changed (Darwinian evolution) were the bacteria that did a “system restore” to the previous functional arrangement. The tests for Darwinian evolution are failing."
If that were the only test you'd probably be right, but I linked to a number in earlier posts that demonstrated bacteria and other organisms changing their genome with beneficial effects. If all mutations provoked a "system restore" response in genes, we'd all still be single celled organisms.
"Your magical mechanism of “selection” can do nothing other than to allow natural laws to continue unviolated. Its has no power other than saving the luckiest randomness."
That's all it's supposed to do. Again, I don't think you grasp the concept of slow, gradual change over hundreds of thousands and millions of years. Despite your fondness for "punctuated equilibrium," slow, gradual changes are just as common in the fossil record as sudden ones.
"The point I have been making is many genes thus DNA sequences for those genes are completely conserved. Some sequences allow for directed (not random) mutations for the organisms survival. You attempt to verify a theory that predicts 100% system change, by giving examples of slight changes in limited genes. The rest of the genes & sequences are highly conserved and defy your mechanism for change. Unable to evolve elements in an organism falsifies a theory that predicts all elements will be capable of change"
The point is, it doesn't predict 100% system change. This is why humans and other complex organisms still share large percentages of their genome with more primitive ones. I doubt there is a single organism on the planet that it 100% different from every other organism on the planet. Most related species are separated by only a couple of percentage points.
"You continue to look at the selection of prewritten information as evidence for naturalism and it is not. Your theory requires new genes with novel functions & new proteins to be created de novo. The naturalists theory starts with a single cell and very few genes (actually at abiogenesis) and must produce new functional genes by natural mechanism."
The natural mechanism is called "mutation."
"Science knows very well what will happen if they experiment with lab induced random copying errors with single celled genomes, the organism will not survive. Just as a PC program can not tolerate its source code constantly randomly modified."
Organisms are not PC programs. Random copying errors are known to occur and organisms survive it all the time, and in many cases become stronger.
"Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees" Glazko G, Veeramachaneni V, Nei M, Makałowski W.
So even though the primary structure of the protein coding sequences in DNA between humans & chimps have only a 1-3 % difference, the tertiary structure of those same proteins have an 80% difference. Morphologically we are similar to the chimp, however the proteins are not similar. For a chimp to evolve into a human he must change the structure of 80% of his proteins. I will not belabor you with the many “protein mis folding” quotes here. But if a chimp was to evolve into a human there must be innumerable amounts of sickly transitional along the way because this is what changes in proteins (Darwinian evolution) produce."
That's a particularly beautiful piece of cherry-picking. What Glazko, et al's study actually found was that the 80% of proteins that were different between humans and chimps were still so similar to each other that they could not account for the phenotypic differences between the two species:
"Even the 80% protein differences appear to be too small to explain the phenotypic differences. It seems that the phenotypic differences are controlled by a small proportion of genes, either by regulatory genes or by major effect genes (Glazko et al., 2005, p.218)."
Also, chimps didn't evolve into humans, they share a common ancestor with us, so changing the structure of 80% of their proteins was never necessary in the first place.Not until you mentioned it, and after looking it up its nothing more than an anthropic principle which explains nothing. The Gia hypothesis has no theoretical formula of origns. And feed back mechanisms can not form naturally. All feed back mechanisms must have fixed elements that keep the system operating within well defined parameters .Something that you (and all evolutionists) have failed to consider is stable accurate repetition can never take place without fixed unable to evolve parameters firmly established.
You claim agnosticism on the issue of the origins of life, yet have failed to acknowledge homeostasis prevents radical changes, from our universe all the way down to the cells. Homeostasis systems could not have eternally existed. Life could not evolve from chemical reactions if systems of homeostasis were in place. Stasis is controlled by elaborate error correction mechanisms that could not possibly have created themselves because Darwinian evolution requires a continual breach in the error correction mechanisms for the ever changing body plans to become established.
Evolutionary theory has no explanation for the sudden breach in error corrections at Cambrian and all throughout the fossil record. I have no idea where your getting the fossil record shows a gradual change, all of the data from paleontology shows sudden appearance and stasis throughout, with a myriad of living fossils to confirm the homeostasis systems are firmly established
The Cambrian “explosion” was the biggest mistake evolutionary science has ever made. Cambrian is blatantly a mass grave yard caused by rapid burial and not an explosion of life. Many body fossils occur higher in the geological column than do their footprints.
“Stratigraphic distribution of vertebrate fossil footprints compared with body fossils,” Brand and Florence. Origins 9 (1982)
The fossil strata level has little relevance to the time a species lived if their footprints are in a different strata level. The “Stratigraphic distribution of vertebrate fossil footprints compared with body fossils,” also discredits the belief the strata layers must be separated by millions of years (that said I'M not a 6000 year old YEC. I believe the earth is at least many hundreds of millions of years old)
The only reason why Cambrian was interpreted as an explosion of life is because a massive burial by flood is too close to the creationism story. Paleontologists know very well the location of a fossil does not necessarily determine it lived in that layer, only that is died in that layer. Polystrate trees also proves strata does not have to be separated by millions of years
=========
“We'd all still be single celled organisms” is your evolutionary presupposition established by faith. There are sequences that are allowed to be tinkered with but they are clearly shown to be directed sequence changes by the speed and precision they occur. They are not random
Google “Altenberg 2008: What Happened?”
"The new concepts include (but are not limited to): evolvability, developmental plasticity, phenotypic and genetic accommodation, punctuated evolution, phenotypic innovation, facilitated variation, epigenetic inheritance, and multi-level selection... As is the nature of science, some of the new ideas will stand the test of time, while others [selection of the luckiest randomness] will be significantly modified"
Molecular biology is understanding random sequence changes will do nothing but harm a highly specific and conserved system. Selection is observed to reduce genome size. These 16 evolutionists are quietly and politely burying the neo-Darwinian synthesis.
Atheistic evolution stands on two things, abiogenesis and the selection of random changes. From what we know now about the cell, chemical evolution is impossible. And Chris Mckay, said in 2011 at an origins of life conference, space seeding the first cells is becoming more acceptable in science.
And many evolutionary biologists now believe selection of random changes will not produce all the variations of species we see. If the selection of random changes is discarded as mechanisms, atheistic evolution is dead and I.D. Is the only other alternative. This is why Dawkins can never let go of random mutations as a mechanism
"[Natural selection] may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested." Daniel Brooks, as quoted by Roger Lewin, "A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity," Science, Vol. 217, 24 September 1982, p. 1240.
"The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well." Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters," Natural History, Vol. 86, June--July 1977, p. 28.
=======
There is no gradualism at all leading up to Cambrian. And I have not found any references that state gradualism, and numerous references that state sudden appearance and stasis. Gould, Eldredge , Tattersall, Raup, Patterson, the list goes on.....all say gradualism is not observable. And paleontologists know this, its only the ignorant public that believe gradualism is observable
========
"A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks semipopular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general. these have not been found-yet the optimism has died hard and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks." Raup, David M. [Professor of Geology, University of Chicago], "Evolution and the Fossil Record," Science, Vol. 213, No. 4505, 17 July 1981, p.289
=====
"...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."
Eldredge, Niles [Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History], "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p.44.
======
GOULD & ELDREDGE, "In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has been favorable. We are especially pleased that several paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence a conclusion that had previously been simply embarrassing; 'all these years of work and I haven t found any evolution'. (R.A. REYMENT Quoted)
======
"The occurrences of long sequences within species are common in boreholes and it is possible to exploit the statistical properties of such sequences in detailed biostratigraphy. It is noteworthy that gradual, directed transitions from one species to another do not seem to exist in borehole samples of microorganisms." (H.J. MACGILLAVRY Quoted)
====
"During my work as an oil paleontologist I had the opportunity to study sections meeting these rigid requirements. As an ardent student of evolution, moreover, I was continually on the watch for evidence of evolutionary change. ...The great majority of species do not show any appreciable evolutionary change at all. These species appear in the section (first occurrence) without obvious ancestors in underlying beds, are stable once established." Paleobiology, Vol.3, p.136
======
PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM, S.M. STANLEY, Johns Hopkins U. "The record now reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand generations, or even a million or more, without evolving very much. We seem forced to conclude that most evolution takes place rapidly...a punctuational model of evolution...operated by a natural mechanism whose major effects are wrought exactly where we are least able to study them in small, localized, transitory populations. ...The point here is that if the transition was typically rapid and the population small and localized, fossil evidence of the event would never be found.", New Evolutionary Timetable, 1981 pp.77, 110
=========
Atheistic evolution requires 100% system change. so unless you believe in an intelligent designer, you MUST believe in 100% system change. And the single cell is the starting point for the naturalistic origins of species hypothesis. The single celled organism must have mechanisms to produce a one trillion celled organism, with specific cells for specific proteins.
Evolutionary science has yet to get the simplest cells to evolve into anything other than what it is. Even after a billion generational years of “evolution”. This is why the theory is never tested at its beginning, the theory would fall apart at the single-celled level. No novel functional proteins are ever produced in the single cell by randomness & selection.
=====
The phenotypic differences are not the problem, it is the 80% of protein folds in those species that need to evolve. That's the point of the article, to show there is only a 1-3% difference in the protein coding sequences, but an 80% difference in the proteins themselves that originated from those same sequences.
===
"From the data available at this time, it would seem that protein structure has been much more conserved during evolution than genetically based amino acid sequences," Chemist Sung-Hou Kim, Berkeley
=====
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds.
"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”
===
And I never said science believes humans evolved from chimps, I said what is considered to be our closest living relative would need to change 80% of his proteins to do so. Protein misfolding (or proteins changing their folds) IS Darwinian evolution, and protein misfolding is always observed to create the less fit.
If this theory did not revolve around God existing, it would have been falsified years ago."The Cambrian “explosion” was the biggest mistake evolutionary science has ever made."
The Cambrian explosion is also a concept that has been outdated for years, so you might want to read some books about evolution that were written more recently than the early 80's.
I notice that once again you have listed off half a dozen quotes on the stasis issue dating from the late 70's and 80's, without apparent awareness that you might as well be quoting papers claiming that the Earth is flat. That is how fast evolutionary science is moving right now. Heck, Gould has been dead for almost 10 years, so to say he's out of the loop on the latest discoveries would be a bit of an understatement.
"There is no gradualism at all leading up to Cambrian."
And this is why relying on 30 year old sources is dangerous. The last 20 years have increased our knowledge of pre-Cambrian life forms substantially and we now know that there IS gradualism leading up to the Cambrian. This is why the concept of the "Cambrian explosion" is now considered to be out-of-date in scientific circles.
"Atheistic evolution requires 100% system change. so unless you believe in an intelligent designer, you MUST believe in 100% system change."
No, it doesn't and no, I don't. As far as I can tell, you invented this ridiculous concept of 100% system change for the sole purpose of giving you an excuse to reject evolution, because nothing demonstrates 100% system change. Unfortunately for you, nowhere does Darwinism claim it should and anybody with the dimmest knowledge of how evolution works is going to see through your ploy and reject it for the utter nonsense it is.
"Evolutionary science has yet to get the simplest cells to evolve into anything other than what it is. Even after a billion generational years of “evolution”."
Care to point me to this amazing experiment that covered a billion generations of evolution? The most I've ever seen is a couple hundred thousand, and that took more than a decade.
"The phenotypic differences are not the problem, it is the 80% of protein folds in those species that need to evolve. That's the point of the article, to show there is only a 1-3% difference in the protein coding sequences, but an 80% difference in the proteins themselves that originated from those same sequences."
You misread both the article and my summary, apparently. Glazko and co. found a 1-2% difference between humans and chimps at the nucleotide level, but an 80% difference at the protein level. However, even though 80% of proteins were different, the differences were so insignificant that they could not account for the phenotypic differences between chimps and humans. For example, the percentage of the amino acid sequence that matched exactly in chimps and humans was 99% or greater in more than 50% of enzymes, and 98% or greater in more than 75% of enzymes. In some cases, the "different" protein could be different by as little as a single amino acid sequence, and all you need for that is a single base switched during replication in one species at some point in the last 4-8 million years. The actual phenotypic differences between chimps and humans are caused mainly by differences in the control regions of genes, not by different proteins.
"And I never said science believes humans evolved from chimps, I said what is considered to be our closest living relative would need to change 80% of his proteins to do so."
Then what's the point? No single species on either the Pan or the Homo side of the split had to change 80% of its proteins to become something else. The 80% change was spread out over 4-8 million years of separate evolutionary paths and multiple different intermediary species on each side. At this point, chimps could no more turn into humans than an alligator could turn into a dog.
"Protein misfolding (or proteins changing their folds) IS Darwinian evolution, and protein misfolding is always observed to create the less fit."
First of all, not all mutations occur in protein coding sections of the genome, so no, protein misfolding is NOT the be all and end all of Darwinian evolution, although it does play a role. A mutation that occurs in a control region of a gene can have a phenotypic effect just as important as a mutation in a protein coding region. For a simple example, consider lactose intolerance. In most humans, the gene allowing us to digest lactose shuts off by adulthood. However, in parts of Northern Europe and Africa where dairy is an important part of the diet, mutations in the control region of the gene allow lactose to be digested into adulthood. This is also a rather interesting example of parallel evolution, since the four different populations with high rates of lactose tolerance have four different mutations making it possible.
Secondly, you're conflating protein misfolding with different protein folds. If a mutation changes the protein into a different functional protein, it's not a "misfold" at all.
Finally, even true protein misfolding can have beneficial or neutral effects. The sickle cell gene is a famous example - misfolded proteins cause misshapen blood cells that confer malaria resistance.
There have been some interesting studies recently suggesting that misfolded proteins could even be a catalyst for genetic diversification:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 203828.htm
http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2011/20 … otein.htmlFirst, I have never read anything on science doing a 180 on Cambrian. And making statements without pointing to the references is meaningless to me. I get unsubstantiated references all day long from evolutionists. I do know molecular biology has recently falsified the tree of life with Cambrian species being the forebears.
Large-Scale Appearance of Ultraconserved Elements in Tetrapod Genomes and
Slowdown of the Molecular Clock
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/2/402.full.pdf
“In 2004, 481 ultraconserved elements (UCEs) that are identical between human, mouse, and rat over 200 bp were described (Bejerano et al. 2004). These sequences show a very low substitution rate over considerable evolutionary distances—the identity between human and chicken sequences is on average approximately 96% (Bejerano et al. 2004), indicating that the substitution rate within UCEs is less than 1% per site per 100 Myr. If such a low substitution rate remained unchanged throughout vertebrate evolution, the majority of UCEs should be present in fish genomes (common ancestor ;450 Myr) with identity close to 90%. However, this is not observed(Bejerano et al.
2004),
==========
If stasis and sudden appearance was observable in the fossil record 30 years ago, its safe to say no transitional's suddenly popped up between those same fossils, if you have new evidence of gradualism, then please point it out. More than likely any recent examples of gradualism is wishful thinking and imagination by evolutionists. Most people do not know fully intact fossils are rare, most fossils are badly fragmented, mixed with other species and reconstructed with plaster and evolutionary presuppositions, any many “new species” are not new at all but assumed to be new based on the strata level and evolutionary presuppositions
"Dr. Eldredge [American Museum of Natural History, New York City] was asked, 'Do paleontologists name the same creatures differently when they are found in different geological periods?' He replied that this happens, but they are mistakes. When asked the same question, Dr. Patterson [British Museum, London] replied, 'Oh, yes, that's very widely done.' Next he was asked, 'That doesn't seem quite honest. You wouldn't do that, would you?' He said that he hoped he wouldn't . ."
"Would not this practice make a lot more species? Dr. Raup [Chicago Museum] said it would; perhaps 70 percent of the species described [in the fossil rocks] are later found to be the same as existing species. So 70 percent of the new species named should not have been [given new names but were], either through ignorance or because of the ground rules used by the taxonomists."—L.D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma (1988), pp. 130-131.
The dogmatic presuppositions go before any subjective investigation. Evolutionary science has arrogantly affirmed without evidence the strata layers must contain an evolutionary progression of different species, so even when the same species is found in different layers, many times they are named differently to validate the evolutionary presupposition . And the only reason for this is, the unsubstantiated assertion all species evolved from a single cell. Naturalism inadvertently asserts there can be no intellects in the universe capable of building a cell & species, and also assert the selection of the luckiest randomness can build the cell & species, and do so without evidence that either position is valid. Absolute arrogance.
=======
Finding a few multi cellular organisms is hardly evidence of gradualism to rampant diversification. There are far too many phylum that all appear at the same time in Cambrian.
"a mutation rate of 10-9 per base pair per year results in only a 1% change in the sequence of a given section of DNA in 10 million years. Thus, he (Ohno) argues that mutational divergence of preexisting genes cannot explain the origin of the Cambrian forms in that time.” Doug Axe
Clearly the math will not work with interpreting the fossil record as Darwin envisioned. Dogmatic evolutionary science will invent some rapid mutation theory (without a mechanism) before they look at Cambrian, and all other fossils beds as they should be viewed , that is rapid burial by sedimentation caused by floods in most cases. The fact that a species footprints and body are often found in different strata tells you the fossil layer the species died in, is not necessarily the same layer they lived in. The phylogenetic tree predicted by Darwinian evolution is being falsified because of these false predictions that the body fossil strata layer must determine time of origins
=====
How is it you can't see the glaringly obvious?. You only have two choices, either species existed since the beginning of the universe with their UCE and conserved proteins fully established, or species went through a 100% system evolution. DNA sequences & proteins did not exist forever or just pop into existence, therefore they must have gone through a 100% system evolution.
The single cell has over 300 conserved molecular machines each with numerous proteins that assemble them. Darwinian evolution requires the few proteins to evolve into the billions of conserved proteins. Its a bit intellectually dishonest to argue in favor of naturalism (no intelligent designer involved) and start the theory (that predicts constant change) with a myriad of highly conserved elements in all species already firmly established, and claim your theory does not require 100% system change, and only because you conveniently start your theory after the billions of highly conserved proteins already exist and not at the single cell where the theory begins
"It is estimated, based on the total number of known life forms on Earth, that there are some 50 billion different types of proteins in existence today, and it is possible that the protein universe could hold many trillions more."Lynn Yarris - 2005
Naturalists can not start with conserved proteins already in existence. If you reject I.D. , logic gives you no other alternative but to accept 100% system evolution. This should be a simply understood concept .
======
I never said any experiments took a billion bacterial generations, I said no changes witnessed in a billion generational years and its actually far more than a billion
We have 250my bacteria DNA that is unchanged
"Halobacteria: the evidence for longevity". Grant WD, et. Al
Aprox 20-30 years = 1 million bacteria generations , so 250 million years of unchanging DNA is about 8 trillion bacterial generations if my math is correct
"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruit flies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruit fly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation...we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species."
Kevin Kelly, Board Chair and founder of the ALL Species Foundation, in his book, "Out of Control": The New Biology of Machines" 1994, Fourth Estate:London, 1995, reprint, p.475. ALL Species Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to the complete inventory, including describing and classifying, all of the species of life on Earth by 2025
=========
I understand 80% of the proteins being slightly different does not equate 80% difference in 80% of the proteins, but the fact that functional proteins require “highly extraordinary sequences” makes the small variations in 80% of the proteins a problem.
And I think I have posted these before.
====
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences ado highly extraordinary sequences."
"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."
===
Functional sequences require extremely accurate folding and must pass multiple layers of error corrections.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 123522.htm
"Most proteins must fold into defined three-dimensional structures to gain functional activity. But in the cellular environment, newly synthesized proteins are at great risk of aberrant folding and aggregation, potentially forming toxic species. To avoid these dangers, cells invest in a complex network of molecular chaperones, which use ingenious mechanisms to prevent aggregation and promote efficient folding. Because protein molecules are highly dynamic, constant chaperone surveillance is required to ensure protein homeostasis (proteostasis). Recent advances suggest that an age-related decline in proteostasis capacity allows the manifestation of various protein-aggregation diseases, including Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. Interventions in these and numerous other pathological states may spring from a detailed understanding of the pathways underlying proteome maintenance"
===
If an organism is going to evolve its phenotype by creating different proteins (which is Darwinian evolution) it must radically change its proteins while simultaneously making it past multiple layers of error corrections, and then establish new error correction mechanisms so the new proteins don't continue to “mis-fold” and cause diseases, so the entire system must simultaneously evolve all the while maintaining a fitness advantage.
Where is the scientific evidence of this?, I have not seen any examples of a species going through this “evolution of its protein folds”, the first sign of this evolution is going to be sick and dying organisms because that is what most changes in protein folds cause. There must be at least 11 eye designs that must change their proteins to accommodate a new design, and do so without causing blind organisms in the process.
Also proteins themselves are more conserved than the sequences they came from
"From the data available at this time, it would seem that protein structure has been much more conserved during evolution than genetically based amino acid sequences," Chemist Sung-Hou Kim, Berkeley
This is because the proteins error corrections resist changing their folds.
“Evolution's new wrinkle: Proteins with cruise control provide new perspective” Kitta MacPherson
"A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order"
=========
I do not know the exact protein count and differences, but I suspect the amount and differences in proteins between a fish and a humans are huge, and the amount of proteins between a single cell and a fish are huge. Darwinian evolution stands or falls on proteins constantly changing to new functional proteins, or morphology and speciation can not take place.
And to say “chimps could no more turn into humans than an alligator could turn into a dog” is hilarious. How can you predict what random mutations will do?, this is why evolution will never be a valid theory, because valid theories make accurate predictions, randomness can predict nothing but randomness. Craig Venter said his biggest fear is that evolution will be indecipherable because of all the random changes that took place
=========
I said directed mutations do exist, I believe if a lactose intolerant person only had milk to live on, the cells would quickly find away to get it digested, but the mutation is not going to be random luck until the lucky sequence is hit, it will be directed. We know by the speed and precision they are not random. This is not the type of evolution the Darwinian synthesis needs, it needs constantly changing proteins and their error corrections to simultaneously evolve by the mechanisms of randomness & selection.
Without changes to the protein coding regions there can be no Darwinian evolution. You observe minor changes in non-protein coding regions and assume all sequences & proteins will in fact evolve, when this is not observable.
======
I agree but finding a functional sequences by random trial and error will create vastly more diseased species than healthy ones in the process.
“Using directed mutagenesis, they have determined that residues in both the hydrophobic core and on the surface of the protein play essential roles in determining protein structure. By sampling intermediate sequences between two naturally occurring sequences that adopt different folds, they found that the intermediate sequences "lack a well defined three-dimensional structure." Thus, they conclude that it is unlikely that a new protein fold via a series of folded intermediates sequences (Blanco et al. 1999)” Biologist Doug Axe
So it appears besides functional proteins having extremely narrow parameters, the new protein folds do not have 3 dimensional functional intermediate states, new functional proteins must hit the lotto every time they change or the species is less fit.
And your sickle cell references created the less fit proteins thus malaria parasites can not survive in the less fit organism. The over all health is worse off"First, I have never read anything on science doing a 180 on Cambrian."
That's because you think 30 year old Gould books are up-to-date.
First, there have been some interesting fossil discoveries indicating that life forms previously believed to arise suddenly during the Cambrian actually had earlier precursors.
Here's one of the better known: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v3 … 868a0.html
Secondly, statistical analysis has revealed that the supposed "explosion" in diversity didn't actually happen any faster than any other period of evolutionary radiation, especially in light of the newer fossil evidence from the pre-Cambrian.
"If stasis and sudden appearance was observable in the fossil record 30 years ago, its safe to say no transitional's suddenly popped up between those same fossils, if you have new evidence of gradualism, then please point it out."
It's not safe to say at all, actually. We already discussed the recent discovery of fossils providing insight into the evolution of fins into limbs and limbs into wings, for example. Most of these discoveries have taken place in the last 10 years.
"Most people do not know fully intact fossils are rare, most fossils are badly fragmented, mixed with other species and reconstructed with plaster and evolutionary presuppositions, any many “new species” are not new at all but assumed to be new based on the strata level and evolutionary presuppositions"
"perhaps 70 percent of the species described [in the fossil rocks] are later found to be the same as existing species."
You say this as if it's supposed to contradict evolution. What you don't appear to understand is that science, unlike religion, modifies itself based on new information. Yes, when an exciting new fossil is found, it sometimes gets named before it's thoroughly studied to make sure it isn't something we already know about, but when it's discovered that it IS something we already know about, then scientists correct the mistake.
Additionally, just because a fossil is the same thing as something else does not mean that it can't offer new information. If all scientists previously had was a jaw bone, for example, then they're going to learn just as much by finding a femur of the same species than they would if it were a femur from an entirely different species.
"The phylogenetic tree predicted by Darwinian evolution is being falsified because of these false predictions that the body fossil strata layer must determine time of origins"
Um, stratigraphic dating is one of many different types of dating.
"How is it you can't see the glaringly obvious?. You only have two choices, either species existed since the beginning of the universe with their UCE and conserved proteins fully established, or species went through a 100% system evolution. DNA sequences & proteins did not exist forever or just pop into existence, therefore they must have gone through a 100% system evolution."
Ah, it's a semantic dispute, I see. First, you're conflating the theories of abiogenesis and evolution. The theory of evolution doesn't actually state anything about the origin of life - it really applies only to the mechanisms of speciation. Therefore, claiming that evolution calls for "100% system change" is both false and ludicrous, because the whole point of evolution is that it relies primarily on extremely minor differences between individuals, populations, and species that build up over vast periods of time. When you say that evolution requires 100% system change, what you actually mean is that abiogenesis requires 100% system change.
Secondly, I'd consider "100% system evolution" to be a better choice of words even if you are talking about abiogenesis. "100% system change" implies that something already existed and was turned into something completely different, when the theory of abiogenesis suggests more that existing things combined into something greater than the sum of their parts.
"The single cell has over 300 conserved molecular machines each with numerous proteins that assemble them. Darwinian evolution requires the few proteins to evolve into the billions of conserved proteins. Its a bit intellectually dishonest to argue in favor of naturalism (no intelligent designer involved) and start the theory (that predicts constant change) with a myriad of highly conserved elements in all species already firmly established, and claim your theory does not require 100% system change, and only because you conveniently start your theory after the billions of highly conserved proteins already exist and not at the single cell where the theory begins"
There's no reason to think that the first cell had "a myriad of highly conserved elements" or, for that matter, to think that life began with only a single cell at all. Remember, we've got most of a billion years where we know that life existed but have almost no physical evidence showing what was going on, plus another 2 billion years after that where the evidence is spotty at best. We know that some modern "highly conserved" sequences DID evolve, so it is illogical to believe that the others couldn't have as well. Additionally, we know that simple life forms such as bacteria and archaea do a lot of lateral gene transfer among themselves, which offers a very easy mechanism for highly conserved sequences, once developed by one cell, to spread even among populations from completely different kingdoms.
"We have 250my bacteria DNA that is unchanged"
And we have sharks, alligators, and horseshoe crabs that have barely changed in 250 million years. What's your point? If something finds its perfect niche and the environment of that niche doesn't change significantly for 250 million years, then there will be strong selective pressure against the spread of mutations through the population. If, on the other hand, something's environment changes rapidly, then there will be strong selective pressure FOR mutations to spread. As happened to humans, for example, after we got pushed out onto the savanna. Evolution does not progress at a steady pace for all species, nor is it supposed to.
"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history."
Given that we're still discovering dozens of species previously unknown to science annually, I really wouldn't say we've been keeping a "close" watch. The propensity of past generations of humans to kill first, ask questions later doesn't particularly bode well for noticing new species either.
"Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruit flies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruit fly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation...we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species."
That's actually false. There have been a number of observed speciation events in laboratory and domestic breeding scenarios:
http://stonesnbones.blogspot.com/2009/0 … ecies.html (also includes a few from the wild)
More:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
"I understand 80% of the proteins being slightly different does not equate 80% difference in 80% of the proteins, but the fact that functional proteins require “highly extraordinary sequences” makes the small variations in 80% of the proteins a problem."
"the first sign of this evolution is going to be sick and dying organisms because that is what most changes in protein folds cause."
Clearly not, since both chimps and humans are doing okay. (Or were until recently, in the case of the chimps.)
Remember, as you yourself pointed out above, that there are billions and probably trillions of functional proteins, many with very minor variations to distinguish them from other proteins. Switching around a couple amino acids is not necessarily disastrous.
Additionally, it's pretty clear if you look at any population of animals, plants, or other organisms (besides modern humans living in the developed world) that organisms do produce lots and lots of "less fit" offspring for every fit one that they produce. Some organisms produce literally tens of thousands of offspring with the expectation that no more than a dozen or two may survive. Even animals that care for their offspring, such as humans, frequently have mortality rates of 50% or more.
"And to say “chimps could no more turn into humans than an alligator could turn into a dog” is hilarious. How can you predict what random mutations will do?, this is why evolution will never be a valid theory, because valid theories make accurate predictions, randomness can predict nothing but randomness. Craig Venter said his biggest fear is that evolution will be indecipherable because of all the random changes that took place"
There's more to an alligator than sharp teeth and scales, you know. Mutations build on each other in ways that make it hard for something to return to a previous form. The canine line could conceivably start hanging around in swamps and eventually become something that resembled an alligator, but it would never be an alligator, any more than a whale or an ichthyosaur is a fish, despite the physical resemblance.Your pre Cambrian Kimberella fossil has the experts divided on what it even is. My initial research found they believe its either a jelly fish or mollusc both of which are living fossils. Bringing up examples of 550my evolutionary stasis does not support your case for evolution.
For some reason you seem to believe species found in successive strata layers is empirical evidence the sequences and proteins can and did evolve. The only area of science that can validate evolution is molecular biology because its the only area of science that can demonstrate the transition of new functional protein coding sequences and protein folds are possible
I can take any living fossil and “prove evolution” with your fossil method by placing a similar looking species on both sides of it and claim the similarities equate a transition took place. Similarities do not equate relationships. This was evolution original prediction that has been repeatedly falsified by molecular biology.
Darwinian evolution's tree of life predicted physical similarities would equate genetic similarities.. The phylogenetic tree does not match the sequences similarities in molecular biology. I reiterate humans share more genes with 500my Cambrian coral than we do with many post Cambrian species. And I believe when all species eventually get sequenced, evolutionary theory will be in a complete upheaval.
======
"For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change.”
======
"Phylogenetic incongruities [conflicts] can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves."
- Carl Woese "The Universal Ancestor," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 95:6854-9859 (June, 1998)
=======
As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology.
- Patterson et al., "Congruence between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies," Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol 24, pg. 179 (1993)
=====
In the article "Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?" by Elizabeth Pennisi, She says
"When full DNA sequences opened the way to comparing many different genes in different organisms, the comparisons proved confounding. Rather than clarifying the tree that seeks to show how life evolved, they often produced new trees that differ from the traditional tree and conflict with each other as well."
=========
That will need some explanation. There is more genetic & phylum diversity in Cambrian than post Cambrian.
"The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 Ma. Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then." ("Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body Plans: The Fossil Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376.)
=====
STEPHEN GOULD, Harvard, "...one outstanding fact of the fossil record that many of you may not be aware of; that since the so called Cambrian explosion...during which essentially all the anatomical designs of modern multicellular life made their first appearance in the fossil record, no new Phyla of animals have entered the fossil record.", Speech at SMU, Oct.2, 1990
======
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 142013.htm
“But during the Cambrian Period, more complex creatures with skeletons, eyes and limbs emerged with amazing suddenness.”
"It appears that organisms displayed "rampant" within-species variation "in the 'warm afterglow' of the Cambrian explosion," Hughes said, but not later. "
“His findings: Overall, approximately 35 percent of the 982 trilobite species exhibited some variation in some aspect of their appearance that was evolving. But more than 70 percent of early and middle Cambrian species exhibited variation, while only 13 percent of later trilobite species did so. "There's hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian," he said. ”Paleontologists have proposed two ideas to account for why variation within species declined through time. One is ecological. In the very early Cambrian seas, fewer organisms existed than today, which meant that they faced less competition for food.”
“The genomic hypothesis offers a second explanation for the decline of within-species variation over time. According to this idea, internal processes in the organism were the key factors. Various developmental processes interact with one another to control the growth and formation of body parts as any organism progresses from egg to adult.”
===========
An analogy of the history of the world can be given with a football field. One end zone is the earths beginning, 4.5by, and the other end zone is today. Cambrian takes place 85 yards away from the start and 15 yards from today. The Cambrian “explosion” is 4 inches long on the 15yl, and there is decreasing in genetic diversity after. Not quite what evolution predicted.
=========
Where exactly are these fossil that show wings slowly growing (and being completely useless until fully developed) from limbs. I have never seen nor read anything like that. Please elaborate
Fossils can not prove a transition took place. Darwinian evolution can only be proven valid at the molecular level. This is the only evidence I will accept. I know what is needed to proven Darwinian evolution and I know the molecular evidence of the Darwinian nature has never been observed.
=========
What is false and ludicrous is you rejecting intelligent design as a legitimate hypothesis for the origins of the cell and species, and simultaneously claim your theory does not require 100% system evolution. Logic and reason will not allow you to reject I.D. and also reject 100% system evolution. The origins of life and species can only have two hypotheses, those are naturalism and I.D., No third hypothesis can exist.
If you reject 100% system change is necessary then you must accept I.D. until you can explain the origins of the functional conserved elements by a hypothesis other than I.D. If you reject an intelligent designer, you have no choice by to accept 100% system change. Basic reasoning.
I have no idea how many different proteins are in a human body, but do know the amount of system difference between the single cell and the trillion celled human are huge. And you say evolution requires only extremely minor differences between individuals, why do you eliminate the single-celled ancestor from the individual species. Compare the difference between the single cell and all other species, and you will see 100% system evolution is needed when all species evolve from one cell. The only conserved elements in common in the single cell and all other species are the molecular machines , cytoskeleton etc..
All other proteins must be subject to evolutionary change or Darwinian evolution is falsified. All the proteins is the life essential organs are highly conserved, if they were not the organism would die. Yet Darwinian evolution requires the proteins in heart, liver, pancreas, etc.. etc.. to be slowly built over time, this means the proteins absolutely can not be conserved or the life essential organs can never get built.
============
Evolution means change over time. I don't know how in your head you think you can believe in naturalism, while simultaneously rejecting intelligent design, yet believe you don't require 100% system evolution. There is a huge gaffe in your reasoning here. You must first fully understand you only have two options, its either the cell & species were a product of continual slight modifications (constant changes) or they were built by an intelligence. You don't have a third option. And since the amount of structural differences and information systems between a one celled organism and a trillion celled organism are massive, the single cell must slowly produce specialized proteins that build all the different appendages, organs and cells types etc.. as the species evolves.
You understand you can't get from a single cell to a human by only making slight changes to limited genes. The biological system in the single cell must have the capability to continually create new and different proteins and cell types or Darwinian evolution is impossible because this is what Darwinian evolution predicts will and did and happen.
You can not logically reject I.D. unless you can validate 100% system change is possible. All intelligently designed systems have fixed elements that are absolutely necessary for system stability, every PC programmer and engineer understands this. The genome is littered with highly conserved systems must remain conserved for system stability.
Do you understand how illogical it is for you to reject I.D. and accept naturalism, while simultaneously saying 100% system change is not necessary?. You admit the functional UCE are needed for system stability, you also must admit all intelligently designed systems have UCE that are needed for system stability and function, and you admit you do not know how the cell what created, and we have numerous quotes from biologists on how biological systems “appear as if designed”, yet you, and all of evolutionary science are so arrogantly certain the cell & species could not have been intelligently designed. That is a complete breakdown in critical thinking. No coincidence most evolutionists are liberal thinkers
===========
Lets make one thing perfectly clear, this “first cell” that is far less complex than the observable cells of today only exist in the imagination of naturalists. There is no evidence of anything simple ever existing. You assert time and chance is evidence it must have happened which is ridiculous
And yes it is illogical to believe all conserved elements can be subject to change while keeping the system stable. Ask any physicist what would happen to life in the 34 constants were to start “evolving”. The universe would crash and life would cease to exist, and organisms are no different. All species need very precise & highly accurate conserved elements to remain that way for survival.
Intelligent design is the only hypothesis that can explain how function and conserved elements can arise. All naturalism can explain is how the elements that didn’t “just happen to get lucky” and freeze and then become resistant to further evolution, were eliminated. So the magical mechanism of selection can never explain how anything functional actually happens, it only explains how the unlucky nonfunctional did not happen. Its no wonder why evolutionists do not want to “teach the controversy” in schools. The thinkers would reject it immediately
And HGT as a mechanism to spread UCE will not work for two reasons
http://www.pnas.org/content/100/17/9658
Horizontal gene transfer: A critical view
“It has been suggested that horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is the “essence of phylogeny.” In contrast, much data suggest that this is an exaggeration resulting in part from a reliance on inadequate methods to identify HGT events. In addition, the assumption that HGT is a ubiquitous influence throughout evolution is questionable. Instead, rampant global HGT is likely to have been relevant only to primitive genomes. In modern organisms we suggest that both the range and frequencies of HGT are constrained most often by selective barriers. As a consequence those HGT events that do occur most often have little influence on genome phylogeny. Although HGT does occur with important evolutionary consequences, classical Darwinian lineages seem to be the dominant mode of evolution for modern organisms”
And secondly unless an organism already has certain life sustaining UCE already in place, it would not even exist to be able to participate in the transferring of information. Naturalist are forced to start their theory after the conserved functional elements are firmly established. Slowly evolving functional conserved elements is an oxymoron
=========
Most of your examples of speciation are slight variations that already exist in the organism. It is the molecular level that must be studied to determine the origins of the variation. If the variation is pre-written information then naturalists can not use those as examples. The only “evolution” the naturalists can use to prove naturalism is new genes and new codes that control gene expression arising. You must show the program being written not being executed.
And the other examples of your evolution are simply breeding favoritism. As with fruit flies no new functional protein folds are ever created, no novel features are ever created. Evolution is grasping at breeding favoritism of identical species and claiming evidence of evolution. The fact is all the organisms can still breed with each other, they just prefer to breed with the ones that “look like them”. Humans do the same thing. And if the fruit flies are left unto themselves they will revert back to their prior states. The amounts of changes needed to prove Darwinian evolution are never observed.
And I agree “Given that we're still discovering dozens of species previously unknown to science annually, I really wouldn't say we've been keeping a "close" watch”.
There maybe many latent variations in some wild species, but they are still all pre-written information being selected for. You need evidence of a information generator not an information selector to validate evolution.
We are doing OK because our error corrections are preventing us from changing our proteins, if we did start to “evolve” our proteins , sickness and disease would be the first sign of it. And yes proteins changing their folds is disastrous. Proteins changing their folds is absolutely necessary for Darwinian evolution to be valid. I have already posted these
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15321723
Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds
“Starting with a weakly functional sequence carrying this signature, clusters of ten side-chains within the fold are replaced randomly, within the boundaries of the signature, and tested for function. 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. “
=======
"From the data available at this time, it would seem that protein structure has been much more conserved during evolution than genetically based amino acid sequences," Chemist Sung-Hou Kim, Berkeley
=======
.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 … 10317.html
Molecular chaperones in protein folding and proteostasis
“Most proteins must fold into defined three-dimensional structures to gain functional activity. But in the cellular environment, newly synthesized proteins are at great risk of aberrant folding and aggregation, potentially forming toxic species. To avoid these dangers, cells invest in a complex network of molecular chaperones, which use ingenious mechanisms to prevent aggregation and promote efficient folding. Because protein molecules are highly dynamic, constant chaperone surveillance is required to ensure protein homeostasis (proteostasis). Recent advances suggest that an age-related decline in proteostasis capacity allows the manifestation of various protein-aggregation diseases, including Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. Interventions in these and numerous other pathological states may spring from a detailed understanding of the pathways underlying proteome maintenance”I didn't want to read all of this, so sum it up for me. The chicken or the egg?
The chicken or egg problem is just but one of a long list for evolution. This is why evolutionists must start the theory after the hard part of building information and functional conserved elements are already established
no it's not? did you read any books on evolution before making that statement?
Evolution did happen; truthful religion does not deny it.
I dont agree with the concept of evolution which is mere speculation of relating the creatures without any fossil proof the one which claims to be are under scrutiny and many believe they are manipulated to support the theory as one in 1912.......
I doubt seriously you understand the process you are denigrating. Where did you learn there are no fossils supporting evolution?
So because some scientist in 1912 tried to make a name for themselves, you decide that every single fossil supporting evolution found before or after that is not valid??
You may want to wait before getting too excited. The 'Bird Dinosaur' is one of many findings that have proven to be frauds. You don't want to build yourself up for a big let down.
If you're referring to Archaeopteryx, you're mistaken. It has in fact been proven not to be a fraud. The similarly named Archaeoraptor did turn out to be a hoax, but there are plenty of other examples of feathered dinosaurs and dinosaur-like birds. Even T-Rex may have had feathers - it was a close relative of the dinosaurs that turned into birds.
Obviously I am referring to the Archaeoraptor. And I would challenge your evidence for any transitional species. Check out the era dubbed as the Cambrian Explosion. It doesn't appear that your evidence for transition is all that strong after all.
And, you comment has no real baring on what Kerryg actually said. Kerryg already said that one was a fraud and the other was a proven fact. Then you replied by bring up the one which Kerryg already said was a fraud.
So your statement is meaningless, considering you two are agreeing, except for the end of your comment, which actually does nothing to change what Kerryg said to begin with.
So why exactly did you comment further or in the manner you did?
You could have just agreed with Kerryg and been done with.The so-called Cambrian explosion took place hundreds of millions of years before the dinosaurs appeared, so I'm not sure what bearing you think it has on the transition from dinosaurs to birds.
As for the so-called Cambrian explosion itself, it seems to be a favorite argument of ID proponents around these forums, but most of you seem to be working off incomplete or out-of-date information about it. In fact, the whole concept of the Cambrian explosion is now considered to be rather out-of-date, because pre-Cambrian precursors to many of the species that were once thought to have emerged suddenly in the Cambrian period have now been found. Though life certainly did diversify impressively during the period, it is now known that it didn't do so significantly faster than in any other period of Earth's history. It's useful to remember that the "explosion" actually took place over a period of 70-80 million years. For comparison, consider that 70-80 million years before the present day, dinosaurs still ruled the Earth and our own ancestors were furry little proto-primates about the size of squirrels, so I think we can agree that the so-called explosion was hardly the blink of an eye that ID proponents like to depict it as.What are yoy trying to say about the Cambrian Explosion? That it didn't happen?
The usual creationist argument is that a whole bunch of new forms and species appeared from nowhere during the Cambrian Explosion, supposedly lending credence to the idea that God did it. Unfortunately, that argument is about 40 years out of date and is now known to be false.
I'm just curious. I've only heard a little bit. I'm not doing cartwheels and jumping over the pews trying to convert anyone. I simply saw the story online and was curious.
You may want to actually study the topic before you start spouting bad information.
Congratulations, you instantly assume that any fossil find may be a fraud because a dozen or so fraudsters have tried to make a name despite the hundreds of thousands of genuine fossils dug up every year.
- Holmes221bposted 12 years ago
0If the findings turn out to be false, this will be used by the creationists as evidence to back up their claims. If on-the-other-hand, they turn out to be genuine, they will be totally ignored by the creationists, who will deny they even exist. So, such findings will not change the beliefs of the creationists at all. If they turn out to be genuine however, it will be another piece of evidence in favour of evolution to add to the huge amount which already exists.
Here is a question? Many of my friends believe in evolution, which is fine. But what created all that evolved?
What blew air into human life form? If the amoeba co-existed first, then what created that?Oh yeah, some learned people and scholar may think they are better than God as they refuse to believe in creation and the existence of God. In the bible, are they not those who have ears yet cannot hear, and have eyes, yet cannot see, and worse, they refuse to listen? Sounds familiar? Yup, you can see people who pretend to believe in God but they don't want to read the bible or even listen to the words of God. I have seen the human embryo grow in stages, and in its wonder, I have seen the hands of God working for the love of man. And everything that happens in this life, I have learned to see the wisdom of thanking God for all my blessings in this life, and most of all, for giving us His only begotten Son, Christ Jesus, as the true Messiah and Redeemer, the light of the world. "And the word was made flesh, and became man..." Jesus Christ, "the truth, the way and the life."
Hallelubah ! I have seen stuff and it did made me think an all that stuffs - but I stopped with that nonsense and blabber blabber blabber now.
You have seen nothing that is not attributaable to man and / nature - you have never seen your god, not even its hand - in fact not even an anything.(Matthew 13:14-15), “In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah,
“You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving; for this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.” Have you heard of many who had been healed of cancer, organ failure, from flesh eating organisms,
paralysis, and the like - yes, through their faith in Christ Jesus, they were healed? If many evolved from the apes, how come apes are still in existence? If evolution is real and true, how come Charles Darwin himself doubted his own theory as he failed in proving the missing links? Man can always be proud of himself as he takes pride of what he knows and of his intelligence, but fail to realize that all these come from God. Even the brain of Albert Einstein was preserved for further research and study but until now, there's no conclusive proof of what makes his brain different from the rest of us. Until now, science cannot explain the origin of the magnetic field in the N & S poles of planet earth or why the earth has life in it while others don't. Even genetics becomes a question if we came from the apes. Until now, I still have to hear of someone having been born with an ape like appearance, lol. And if God is not real, what can you say about the incorruptible bodies of some saints, miracles of the Holy Eucharist in South Korea, apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mother in more than a dozen sites from around the world delivering her message of love and faith in Christ Jesus, the miracle of a mysterious cloth or mantle whose source and appearance baffles scholars and experts to date, including the Shroud of Turin, in which science has no clear explanation on the enormous light that produced the distinct image on the cloth material, and many more? You may have your own explanations and theories about all these, but still, they will stay as theories unlike the truth in God's words in Christ, as written in the Holy Bible. The messages in God's words stay true until today, including the wrath of God for unbelievers and habitual sinners, despots, dictators, abusive rulers, false beliefs and false prophets, etc. that it is not us, but God in His anger who will repay as in Romans 12:19 and Proverbs 20:22. No human wisdom or intelligence can ever understand the existence of God and His power in Christ Jesus, as God is spirit. Only those who open their hearts and spirit, will see the truth in God and in His words. God loves us all that He wants us to open ourselves to Christ, His Son, that we may learn to know him more and see the light of Christ as he heals us all from our pride, selfishness and hardened spirit, that we may see true peace and happiness within and around us. If you still will not listen I will pray for your enlightenment. Or, you must be kidding me, lol. You're doing a good job though beefing up conversation on this site.What a load of twaddle - you list a litany of lies and fakes, even including the Shroud of Turin that was carbon dated to mediaeval times and now a world renowned fake.
And all this rubbish instead of letting us know about this god you say have seen.
Liars for jesus busy faking any and everything.
What a good answer.
I believe in God, but I do have friends who do not. I believe our answers are so amazing. I thank God to for each and everyday.
@AEvans: That same logic could be flipped around to ask believers, If god is real, who created him and so on and so on and so on.
It sounds logical, if we base it on logic. But when I am in the forums everyone (including myself) tend to look for facts. I wish we could all come to some type of understanding in our individual beliefs. And everyone could get along without arguing who is right and who is wrong.
Acceptance of each other is where we gain knowledge and understanding for all mankind.
Chemical reactions. Co existent chemical reactions appear all the time, and many, even in modern day ecosystems.
Probrably another fraud.
Either that or they will go to guessing as usual.
Huh... let the laughs begin!Casgil: I am not sure to whom you were speaking, but I cannot agree with anything Kerryg says. Any so called transitional species are far from proven facts. I don't necessarily refute the evidence as much as the conclusions derived from the evidence. And anyone who thinks that the theory of evolution is beyond dispute, which you seem to believe, is merely fooling themselves.
You appear to not want it to be true. However, it's been accomplish in many aspects to have been proven.
There were TWO things mentioned in Kerryg's post. Only one you could dispute. Which, Kerryg mentioned was a fraud. Thus, you were agreeing with Kerryg, even if you don't want to recognize it, your statement agrees with Kerryg.
So please....Evolution has been proven and only idiots attempt to dispute it.
The fact that you're attempting to dispute what has already passed peer review of the scientific community, is obviously your individual misunderstanding of how things work.
And, as almost every person who understands evolution, none of them, make the claim that it's proof that a god doesn't exist.
You pushing distortion and misinformation, to support what you think people are using Evolution for, is your problem.Exactly, talk.
It is not evolution that we do not see... it is their interpretation of the so called evidence to support thier lil master-piece of atheistic theology.
There are no transitional fossils in the record, anyone who use the fossil record to try to support the theory as they spout it is not even credible. The Cambrian explosion destroys evolution as they claim... and so many other holes. Not to mention the fraudulent evidence they seem to throw around as fact, Pilt-down man, black moth study, embryology, Miller-Urey, all frauds... and still they have them in the science books and taught to the lil ones as though they are real.
And then they want to be trusted.
Right.
They just do not seem to get that the jig is up. All the Leftist lies of the last 90 years are falling apart... and they are scrambling to finish destroying this country before all their lies and games collapse.Holes and missing fossils do not disprove evolution, they merely show that fossils yet need to be found to fully explain certain evolutionary trends. And yes, there are fossil records that show the growth of evolution, even in the very earliest days of life on earth.
Feel free to keep spouting the nonsense that there are no transitional fossils, or go to a museum and look at them for yourself, it really is your choice.
If you don't believe in transitional species - look at the evolution of dogs.
Yes the Australians are still pretending they have 46,000 year old fossils, and even claim they are real.
Everyone knows it must be all lies, after all, a pile of religious fanatics with an axe to grind don't believe in them.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htmCooldad, I read an abstract about this finding last week and just got my hands on the actual scientific publication. I am planning to read it and hopeful I will break it down in a hub in the near future. It sounds like a very interesting discovering. I have alway had an interest in anthropology and paleontological work.
Here is an exciting new discovery!
NEWS: In March 2010, Johannes Krause of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany announced that the mitochondrial DNA recovered from a 50,000-30,000 year old finger bone found at a Siberian cave site known as Denisova is from an up to now unknown form of human (now referred to as the Denisovans). This possible new variety or even new species of human lived at the same time as Neandertals and early modern humans (March 24, 2010 Nature). About 4-6% of the DNA of the living New Guineans and other Melanesians appears to be inherited from the Denisovans (December 23, 2010 Nature). This would imply that their ancestors interbred to some extent.Earnestshub, I read about this recently. Anthropologists have long said there were several species of early hominids living simultaneously more than 200,000 yrs ago. But they did not know whether or not they interbred because they roamed in groups scattered far and wide from each other until this recent discovery of another species.
Let me clarify one thing here, all these species originated in Africa as one species and migrated from there at different times and gradually evolved into the other species over time in new locations due to the their separation from the other groups.
If you happen to find life suddenly appearing out of nowhere, then maybe you'll have a real discovery.
God isn't part of this universe that is governed by certain laws. One of which is that matter doesn't just appear out of nowhere and form life out of non-life. Otherwise, you should be careful what you might be eating when you open up your next jar of Skippy peanut butter. Some new life form may pop out.
Ya gotta be kiddin me right?
Haven't you heard? Evolution is a done deal, we are stardust, and we have known how life was formed for many years now, as well as the exact age of the universe and this little blue green thingy.You gotta be kiddin me right? It is hard to tell where your fantasy ends and your "truth" begins.
Tell that to Lawrence Krauss! (To use a religious tactic)
That is a laugh riot, E.
You do know that cosmologists are aware that the supppossed age of the universe does not allow for enough time for energy to cool to matter and then to the amount of mass we now see?
Don't you?
Just not enough time... period!
So no... we do not know the exact age of the universe.
We guess at it... just like all the other things you all spout about.
And then there is carbon dating... what a laugh.
Man my stomach hurts E... quit it would ya.
I esp. like how all of a sudden the Cambrian explosion was nothing really... and all fossils are transitional fossils... man my stomach... what a laugh.Year I get a laugh out of this as well! Lawrence Krauss, Darwin, Hawking, et al are just ignorant country bumpkins who guess at everything.
I esp. like how all of a sudden science is supposed to stay static and not ever progress or learn new things, as if it were some dusty 6000 year old religious tract passed down from illiterate sheep herders... man, my stomach. What a laugh!
Science progresses all the time... usually it occurs right after it sheds its biased and aroggant suppositions and assumptions on a subject.
However, religion can never shed its biased and aroggant suppositions and assumptions on a subject because it says there is no evolution so it can not evolve. lol...
At least science can evolve and drop biased and aroggant suppositions and assumptions on a subject.Where do you see my religion saying there is no evolution?
I think you are making assumptions based on your own bias about a book you have not read.
The entire Bible is about Evolution... the Evolution of the spirit of Man.
Again... if you can show me in the bible where it says there is no evolution... then produce it.
I will be here waiting.Why in the world would I try to do that? I could ask most of your fellow christians the same thing. They are the ones who claim there is no evolution.
The fact that you claim there is, is just an other example of the fact that all christians think they have the right answer and all of them have different answers.
But you are just playing games with me here. You said there is evolution but of the spirit of man. So you don't think man evolved over time physically as well as mentally, do you? So you accept that things change, but not fundamentally from one species to another. Correct?
So I will take up your challenge. In your bible is a creation myth which you take seriously. Whether you are a young earth creationist, or a liberal Catholic who thinks evolution is true but that's just the way god dun it, you are all creationists. So in your book, that creation myth is where it implies that there is no such thing as evolution, only minor insignificant change.
So wait no longer.You got him there old chap - the bible clearly says god made Adam - it must have been just one guy as it wasn't plural.
"So you accept that things change, but not from one species to another. Correct?"
Yes.
"So in your book, that creation myth is where it implies that there is no such thing as evolution, only minor insignificant change."
Where?
I see nowhere it implies of or states out right that evolution doe not exist... that is your own flawed interpretation of what the words say. God created life... nowhere does it say that life did not evolve in ways over time.
I am no Catholic, nor Liberal anything, and I am not so much a young earther either. I do not know how long the world has been here... it could be 4.5 billion years... or not. I do not really trust carbon dating so...But but but it says god made Adam - even gave his name !!! if this is not a direct statement that man did not evolve but was made in one go then nothing is.
"TM cannot answer the direct issue of his bible refuting evolution in one simple sentence - god made Adam."
Well that's true, Recommend 1. But his problem is that at some point he started to take it all too personally. He couldn't allow himself to just concede the point and move on.
Like I said, it doesn't matter what you believe. You believe god created it all. So that implies it was not the result of an evolutionary process of nature without the intervention of a god/
So you see, your creation myth is one side of the coin and says evolution is not the way the universe was created, it was created by a god. Doesn't matter how long it took or how it evolved after that, it is insignificant change.
If your book says that a god dun it, then it is saying nature didn't do it without one.
Do you see the logic here? By claiming one way is correct is saying the other possible ways are wrong.
You have already accepted that we do not change from one species to another so you are implying that evolution of species is wrong. And that is based on your notion of a god and creation. So you creation myth implies that a god dun it, therefore there is no such thing as evolution of species.
I am not sure if I can make this any clearer for you.So you surrender the point? Very well. I accept your surrender.
There is no creator. Nature is all there is. No god required.And saying: "Evolution is a tool of creation... not the creator." is somehow not bait? lol...
Please. It would be nice to have a conversation with a Christian that knows that we are both baiting each other to come up with a better answer than the other fellow. You call it \bait while I call it a challenge to your intellect and debating skills.
Just saying "bait" does not cut it. Please try to do better.When you start threads off with... "I want an answer, but I will not accept any answer you all give me"... then that is bait.
Fairly simple.
I have had many a long conversation with lots of people on here... we all know what bait is and why it is employed.
Well it would be nice if you actually quote me correctly. I didn't say I would not accept an answer, I said you could not answer it. Prove me wrong and answer. What is the point of you crying like a baby about bait? Just answer the question. The fact that you think crying about bait means anything tells you have nothing to say. is that true? Do you really have nothing to say?
Try please. Just try.Right. I see you have nothing to say. I accept your surrender. I would take a debate course if I were you. lol...
TM cannot answer the direct issue of his bible refuting evolution in one simple sentence - god made Adam.
I think we can all agree that you win this round Slarty old chap.Yes he did.
And that doesn't say evolution doesn't exist.
You assume evolution is one species rising from another... there is no proof of that. And he speaks of the origins of life as though evolution accounts for that... not so. That theory does not explain the occurance of life from nothing. He speaks of the big bang being created by evolution... show me the proof of that?...
I know evolution is the gaining of traits and modifications to adapt and become more suited. And I know that occurs in every life form.
See, evolution... just not as you want to apply it in some fairy-tale way that has no basis in science.
I didn't know we were debating. It seems that most of the comments are just shared insults on most of the religion versus evolution forums. I took debate in school. I don't remember that being part of the curriculum.
TM
See? You can refine your argument if you try. lol... Very good.
Now, What you are saying is that one species arising from another is not fact. But we know it is fact. Even a virus mutates from one type to another.
The definition of species in part contains the idea that anew species can not successfully mate with the group's parent species.
Again, many bacteria and virus do this speciation every year. That's why it is so hard to get a good handle on the flu.
So yes, speciation is a proven fact. In fact there are examples of speciation in many animals.
Since you accept that evolution is gaining traits and modifications, how is it that you can not see that when a group has gained enough of them, they are no longer part of the species they used to be part of?
And you make a big mistake in reason when you say: "That theory does not explain the occurance of life from nothing. "
Of course it doesn't explain something from nothing. That would be absurd. You can't get something from nothing. So energy has always existed in one form or another. This is also a law of thermodynamics. You can not create energy or mass, and it can not be destroyed. .
Therefore there is no conscious outside god required. Simple as that.
Since I know nature exists and there are such laws, I have evidence for my opinion that the nature of energy/matter is metaphorically god: that which produced all of this. .
What real evidence do you have of your god?
God talk said:
"I didn't know we were debating. It seems that most of the comments are just shared insults on most of the religion versus evolution forums. I took debate in school. I don't remember that being part of the curriculum."
When people take things personally insults happen. But if you don't take insults personally it doesn't matter. What matters is the logic of the argument.
What you may not learn in debate class is how to separate the people with skill and the hacks. The hacks are people with opinions but they have no way of justifying them. They take things said to them personally and start crying about irrelevancy. Case in point being using the word "bait" constantly instead of having the balls concede the point of the argument.
Occasionally you come across someone who can actually match you logic for logic and when that happens things get interesting and worth using those debating skills you learned in school on.
I like honesty. When someone proves me wrong I admit it and move on. After all, there is such a thing as misinterpretation. So part of debate is coming to agreement on terms. To do that we often have to evolve our understanding of the other person's position. Being wrong about what someone else means is common.
But you are right. What goes on in these forums is not debate. At least it isn't formal debate. But it has it's place. Even the flaming has it's place.
I'm going to have to do a hub on this. lol...Actually it would be more like crying and throwing a hissy fit for being called out on baiting.
I have answered and you do not like the answers.
Too bad.
Of course you have made it quite clear no answer is good enough to begin with. And then whine about people not wanting to play your game with you.
Why give you any answers when they are not good enough to begin with.So - to keep it clear for me, you do not believe in the Creationist line ? I don't mean that a god or whatever created the Univerese, maybe in a big bang or whatever, I mean you do not agree with the idea that the earth was created in 7 days some 6000 years ago and everything put here in a 'one go' style of creationism ?
You called me out? Was that what that was? lol... You finally did clarify your definition and I have just answered you. I'm waiting to see if you answer or start crying in your soup again.
.
Don't take anything personally, TM.
The Bible may not specifically argue against evolution, however it does argue with the evolutionary history of the world.
Yeah, like the biased and arrogant supposition that because we hadn't found pre-Cambrian precursors to "new" Cambrian species, they didn't exist. Or the biased and arrogant supposition that there's a precise halfway point for the transition from one species to another, instead of millions of minute individual changes that spread through the population and snowball over tens and hundreds of thousand years.
Well this could go on forever, kerry...
I will just agree with you that there is a lot of biased arrogance and supposition in science.
Sounds good to me.
Glad you agreeOf course. Scientists are only human. Their "biased and arrogant suppositions" aren't the ones you think they are, though! It would be helpful, if you want to argue evolution with me, if you didn't rely on vague memories of high school biology class from the 50's. Our knowledge and understanding of things has improved a bit since then.
You guys and your 50s humor... you so funny.
My mention of the 50s science was to point out that the Leftists still teach it in the science boooks to the children as real and fact... and they were frauds and failures.
See how that works Kerry?
If you are going to still teach it in schools as fact... then it has to be confronted and put in the light of day. Pick up any high school science or jr high science book and you will see them in there.
And that is a pathetic way to teach children... first the lies then the way to create theories to support the lies... all to reach a pre-concieved biased opinion of how it is.
That is what Science has been reduced to.I've got one kid of my own and a bunch of nieces and nephews in school right now and have yet to see any mention in their science textbooks of any known hoaxes.
I'm sure it happens sometimes, but probably more as a consequence of the fact that most elementary and high school textbooks are not written by scientists on the cutting edge of their field, but rather by committees of elementary and high school educators who may or may not have bothered to keep up with recent developments.
In some cases, you also have schools using out-of-date textbooks due to budget issues - evolutionary science, paleontology, and related fields move quite quickly, so a book that's five years old might already be out of date, and if you've got one from the 80's... ~shudders~
You seem to be speaking in tongues. I am not sure what you are saying but it sounds like you didn't like what I stated. By the way, have you ever seen any experiments in a laboratory that can be repeated over and over again to Scientifically prove that evolution is a true science? You see evidence and interpret it according to your own biased worldview, just like you claim that I do. But true science is based upon repeatable experiments. Maybe evolution isn't really a true science? Can I hear an Amen?
Why don't we talk about it after you get an education?
Is is that you don't want to educate me, or is it that I'm right?
No education can penetrate the god myth in full flight from the religiously impaired. If it ain't in the book it's out.
The fact that the book is the most pornographic psychotic pile of words except for it's sister book of hate the quoran, seems to be missed somehow, and therein lies unimaginable gullibility combined with a capacity for selective thinking that also defies logic or even common sense.
Microevolution, which is really just evolution that hasn't had long enough to become macroevolution, is already proven through repeatable laboratory experiments. If you figure out how to live for a couple million years, by all means pass it on to scientists so they can perform repeatable laboratory experiments that demonstrate macroevolution in action. Meanwhile, the closest thing we've got to eternal life is examining fossils, and the fossil evidence overwhelmingly supports the existence of macroevolution.
I'll take that as an affirmative for the "I'm right" category.
Glad you finally saw the light and are on our side earnestshub.
The pride and selfishness you speak of is the calling card of religion, not a lack of it!
copy pasting yards of bu!!@hit does not make it any less bull.
I was hoping to have at least one of my arguments refuted by actual evidence
If you have not noticed yet intelligent design has put Darwinian evolution on trial before the entire world. The more we learn about biology the more complex its getting.
Telling the Judge "copy pasting yards of bu!!@hit does not make it any less bull" as a defense will not fly in this court room
The scientific reformation is going on right now. Many scientists will soon break away from methodological naturalism because their intellectual integrity relies on it, and they know it.No it is not 'on trial' anywhere except in a few deluded minds. No scientist is breaking away from scientific theory and discovery to indulge in the constructed twaddle of ID. And pasting up yards of words, that you do not understand enough to argue with you about, is just wallpapering the empty walls of your mind.
- Dishonesty and comedy know no bounds here.
Perhaps both are right. Those who believe in a higher power were created as an image of that power, and those who don't were decended from monkeys. Makes perfect sense if you think about it explains why there's such a difference of opinion because both sides are absolutly sure they're right.
P.S. Please don't wait til I'm on my flight to Ireland before responding...thanks.Ireland, I have Irish friends who go back there regularly.
I believe in a type of evolution of built in variations that are selected for as the environment changes, so slight variations are observable, however no radical changes of Darwinian necessity are ever observed, only minor variations for adaptation purposes.
P.S. I was a little slow on that joke
In regards to the fossil found in Africa, it may be a fraud, it has happened before, but it is also regarded as the birthplace of humanity.
Trying to find fossils in Africa is not particularly easy, but people are searching.Man got created via evolution; hence the fossils being found in different part of the world.
Related Discussions
- 234
How do creationists explain fossils eg of dinosaurs
by Baileybear 13 years ago
How did they get there etc?
- 327
can anyone prove that the bible is false
by Troy Wilkerson 12 years ago
If you cant prove that the Bible is false, how can you call it lies. That is irrational, for to call someone a liar you must have proof to the contrary to what they are saying. Anything else is personal opinion and mere speculation.
- 879
Science vs Religion; The ultimate showdown of human origin?
by Phocas Vincent 8 years ago
Is it possible to truly be religious as well as believe in the evidence of science with theories such as evolution, the Big Bang and dinosaurs existing prior to man not along side? (Please keep it clean and civil guys, thank you.)
- 34
If evolution is fact, why are there so many variations of the process?
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter 9 years ago
If evolution is fact, why are there so many variations of the process?In response to a previous question 6 people gave six variations of evolution: Several theories involved fish and several did not. One person discussed migration of lions? If evolution is true, why don't all...
- 26
Questions about Evolution
by janesix 8 years ago
I have some questions about evolution.1. Random Mutation. Is it really random?"To determine how the bacteria had gained their tails, Dr. Xavier and his colleagues sequenced the DNA of 24 lines of hyperswarmers. In 24 out of 24 cases, they discovered that they have gained a mutation in the same...
- 19
Is it possible to believe in both Creation and Microevolution?
by Jacqui 10 years ago
Is it possible to believe in both Creation and Microevolution?A comment on another question sparked this. Those who believe in Creation often scoff at the idea of Evolution eg we can't be descended from Apes etc..Adam and Eve etc. Yet, someone answered with the idea that they believed in...