Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What i can't understand about evolution....
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 121 of 493 (492474)
12-31-2008 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by wardog25
12-31-2008 2:11 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
Hi, Wardog.
wardog25 writes:
It never ceases to amaze me that evolutionists do not really fathom the creationist point of view.
I don’t want to be offensive and start a mud-slinging contest here, but I think, if you study a little bit more, you’ll find that it’s the creationists who really don’t fathom their own point of view.
And, it never ceases to amaze me how many clueless people say exactly what you just said. I’m a little surprised to hear it from you, because you certainly don’t strike me as one of them.
-----
wardog25 writes:
The diversification of animals after the flood did not follow the pattern of evolutionary natural history (for those who are calling it that).
First, I coined the term myself (along with it’s companion “creationary natural history” (which also included coining the term “creationary”)), and the US Patent Office pays me a dollar everytime somebody says it. So, keep going! (Obviously, I’m lying about the money; but, as far as I know, I did make up the terms).
Second, I disagree with you. The diversification of animals before and after the time often attributed to the Noachian flood did follow the pattern of evolutionary natural history. Now what do we do? Start a thread about it, I guess.
-----
wardog25 writes:
Why is it that bi-racial parents can have one light skinned child and one dark skinned? Why is it that two parents with brown hair can have a child with red hair? Did these children evolve? No, the parents were already carrying the traits.
The fundamental concept of evolution is that offspring are different from their parents. The Theory of Evolution is primarily concerned with the fixation of new genes, but new combinations of already-existing genes can also be selected for or against by natural selection. And, creationists/IDists like to claim (as you did in Message 115) that this is the only way for evolution to happen. But, this is not true.
Red hair and light skin are mutations.
There was a time in the past when red hair did not exist in the human population.
There was a time in the past when light skin did not exist in the human population.
There was a time in the past when Slavic people didn’t exist.
There was a time in the past when epicanthal folds (which cause “slanted eyes”) didn’t exist.
There was even a time in the past when blonde hair did not exist in the human population.
And (at least in the case of red hair) scientists have found exactly what the mutation is (there are actually several different mutations that lead to the red-hair phenotype). Check out this section of the Wikipedia article on red hair and this segment of the Wikipedia article on the MC1R protein, which is the protein that red-haired mutants do not express properly. And, this short report (I hope you don’t need a subscription to view it, but I don’t think I did) reviews some work done on red hair phenotypes, and enumerates the exact mutations to the MC1R gene that cause red hair (there are four or five listed here, any one or two of which can apparently lead to red hair).
Furthermore, processes that produce those mutations have been seen to occur thousands of times in laboratory studies. I don’t know what the exact stimulus was in these cases, but mutations are known to be caused by UV exposure, free radicals, simple unforced errors of DNA-coding machinery, and other stuff, any of which can happen for no particular reason at all.
So, we’ve shown what the difference between red hair and blonde hair is, and we’ve shown that that difference can occur by mutation. And, on top of that, we’ve watched as dozens, maybe even hundreds, of new, beneficial mutations have appeared in laboratory-reared colonies of bacteria. And yet, you somehow still made this argument in Message 115:
wardog25 writes:
Mutation has not been shown to be a reliable mechanism of healthy change, so it would have very little to do with this process.
I would like to point out the neither “reliability” nor “healthiness” is required of mutation. Mutation is simply a random generator that produces hundreds of random, small changes each generation, some subset of which get passed on. If every generation in your pedigree accumulated and passed on just one mutation (I think the actual number is likely much more than that), there would be over 240 base pairs in you that were not in Noah (assuming 6000 years ago and 2-year generations). But, that’s assuming we are asexual, such that there is only one line of people. In reality, each human generation consists of the conjunction of two lines of people.
So, you get one that’s new to you, one from each parent, one from each grandparent, one from each great-grandparent, etc. 15 in just four generations. Your spouse will contribute another 15, and your child will produce a new one of their own, so there’s 31 in 6 generations.
You can see how this might get messy?
And, it’s easily an understatement. I’m sure you’ll pass on more than just 1 new mutation to your children, because mutations happen more frequently than that.
Furthermore, mutation isn’t the only kind of novel change that happens in a genome. There are mechanisms whereby chromosomes “intentionally” introduce variation by reshuffling their contents among themselves. Plus, certain types of viruses frequently introduce hordes of their own sequences into their hosts’ genomes. These will all be passed on, and may someday experience enough mutations to accidentally create something functional.
-----
There, I think I've said enough now. I'm exhausted.
-----
Aside to RAZD: Thank goodness Google provides “closest match” searches, or I never would have found out that “non compos mentis” is an insult. You punk!
I decided to go with an entomology theme, just so people would associate me with my profession more easily. You can still call me Bluejay, though: that’s my name, after all.

I'm Bluejay.
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by wardog25, posted 12-31-2008 2:11 PM wardog25 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 12-31-2008 6:36 PM Blue Jay has not replied
 Message 278 by wardog25, posted 01-07-2009 11:18 PM Blue Jay has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 122 of 493 (492475)
12-31-2008 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by PaulK
12-31-2008 5:10 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
PaulK writes:
Even by the most favourable interpretation the Ark only carried 7 pairs of each "clean" animal - which is small enough to be in danger of inbreeding. All other species are even worse off - the unclean "kinds" would be represented by only a single pair.. Even if the "kinds" in the ark were species they should ALL have low genetic diversity without mutation. The problem is multiplied horrendously if you make a "kind" a genus or more.
Wardog's preferred scenario even requires mutation. Each unclean "kind" would be represented by two individuals, so each gene could be represented by at most 4 alleles. Since many unclean "kinds" have many more than 4 alleles for many genes, those in excess of 4 could only have arisen by mutation.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by PaulK, posted 12-31-2008 5:10 PM PaulK has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 123 of 493 (492478)
12-31-2008 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by wardog25
12-31-2008 2:11 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans denial!
Hello once again wardog25
It never ceases to amaze me that evolutionists do not really fathom the creationist point of view.
I fathom it. It is simplistic and naive, uninformed, and contradicted by the evidence. Like believing that the sun revolves around the earth. All needs to do is ignore evidence to the contrary. Such as the fossil evidence you have refused to consider. Such as that mutations cause changes to hereditary traits that are passed to following generations.
All I have to do is start with the beginning assumption that there is no God and the evolutionist point of view comes into focus fairly easily. I don't agree with it, but I understand where they are coming from.
Curiously I believe in god, a god that created the universe in all it's untold mystery. A god that created the conditions for life to evolve.
Thus, when you say something like this, you are saying a falsehood. Strangely, the only one deluded by your falsehood is you. You do NOT understand the "evolutionist point of view" and the evidence of this is all the posts to you on this thread alone correcting your misconceptions and false understandings.
To understand evolution, all I need do is assume that the evidence speaks the truth, that any concept about the history of life can be false, and then investigate where the evidence leads. All I need is open minded skepticism.
To believe in creationism, I have to do is start with the beginning assumption that the evidence shows a set pattern of life, and that everything that contradicts it must be false. Then just keep ignoring the evidence that contradicts the belief. Blind belief trumps any evidence. All I need is closed minded denial. It is that simple.
Why is it that bi-racial parents can have one light skinned child and one dark skinned? Why is it that two parents with brown hair can have a child with red hair?
It's called genetics. Mendel figured it out.
What you are seeing is the result of evolution at a family scale: parents with different sets of hereditary traits pass on some to each child, and what the child ends up with is different from the combination in either parent, and some of the traits are combined in different ways.
In addition the offspring will have some DNA sequences that are NOT found in either of the parents, sequences that are new mutations.
Did these children evolve? No, the parents were already carrying the traits.
Correct, individual organisms do not evolve. The DNA they inherit is composed of DNA from each parent and some that are new mutations made from the DNA of each parent.
When Mendel did his experiment, he did not always get precise exact mathematical matches to his theory, as some plants exhibited traits that had not existed before. He did not know about mutations.
The question you are not asking yourself is how the traits of the parents became so diverse in the first place that they represent different races - where did all those different traits come from?
When a child has a new trait that never existed before, then where does that come from?
When an offspring of an organism survives a disease that kills both the parents, grandparents, etc, where does that resistance come from?
So really, it all just depends on what genes the parents were carrying. Since I don't know what the parents looked like, I can't really expound much further.
The question you are not asking is why the parents have such different traits to pass out - why are they not all the same as the original parents? Interestingly, what scientists do, is pursue the question of what the parents looked like. This is what the evidence shows:
Message 115
Per my post just above, since the mechanism of change is not mutation - but trait diversity through "breeding" - the mechanism cannot continue beyond what genes the parents already had. So that would be the line that you are looking for.
The question you are not asking is how the parents have these different traits to pass out - why are they not all the same as the original parents?
Notice that what you have done is deny one piece of evidence that is a dominant factor in evolution in order to maintain your belief.
If I crossbreed several dogs and get a new breed, did I cause a new breed to evolve? No, I just mixed and matched genes that were already there.
Sadly for you this is another falsehood. You have selected traits and changed the distribution of hereditary traits in a population, and over the course of several generations you will be selecting from traits that did not exist in the original population.
If your new breed is based on a unique set of hereditary traits, and you have selected members for reproduction that exhibit those traits while omitting others from the reproduction of following generations, then yes, you have caused a new breed to evolve. Reproductive isolation plus selection that differs from selection in the parent population will produce different results.
If your new breed is not based on a unique set of hereditary traits then you have not developed a new breed.
The question you are not asking is how the organisms have these different traits to pass out - why are they not all the same as the original population?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by wardog25, posted 12-31-2008 2:11 PM wardog25 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 124 of 493 (492479)
12-31-2008 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Blue Jay
12-31-2008 5:19 PM


ot asides, the point of difference is ...
[ot aside]
Aside to RAZD: Thank goodness Google provides “closest match” searches, ...
It's from an old Ferdinand Feghoot story ... a planet with no magnetic field but some bugs that always faced north. The exploration was sabotaged by substituting a non compass mantis for the real one. The stories always end with an outrageous pun.
[/ot aside]
Furthermore, mutation isn’t the only kind of novel change that happens in a genome. There are mechanisms whereby chromosomes “intentionally” introduce variation by reshuffling their contents among themselves. Plus, certain types of viruses frequently introduce hordes of their own sequences into their hosts’ genomes. These will all be passed on, and may someday experience enough mutations to accidentally create something functional.
The critical thing here is that at the point of reproduction the offspring DNA includes sequences that are not matches to sequences in either parent, and this results in net differences from parents. Those difference may or may not affect how the organism develops.
Whether offspring dies or flourishes as a result of those differences is the selection part of evolution.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Blue Jay, posted 12-31-2008 5:19 PM Blue Jay has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 125 of 493 (492493)
12-31-2008 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by wardog25
12-31-2008 2:35 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
Per my post just above, since the mechanism of change is not mutation - but trait diversity through "breeding" - the mechanism cannot continue beyond what genes the parents already had. So that would be the line that you are looking for.
Mutation has not been shown to be a reliable mechanism of healthy change, so it would have very little to do with this process.
That's not true. There are plenty of examples where mutations have been shown to take place and be benefical as well.
I notice that you have at first asked for biological evidence for evolution, but once that evidence was given to you, you did not give any responce to that evidence. Instead, you are starting an entirely different line of attack. you are claiming that mutations could not have lead to evolution beyond your undefined 'kinds'. I think that is really bad form. I want to know what you think about the evidence that was given to you before moving the goalpost.
Edited by fallacycop, : typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by wardog25, posted 12-31-2008 2:35 PM wardog25 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by wardog25, posted 01-01-2009 9:34 AM fallacycop has not replied

wardog25
Member (Idle past 5553 days)
Posts: 37
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 126 of 493 (492550)
01-01-2009 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by fallacycop
12-31-2008 10:12 PM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
I notice that you have at first asked for biological evidence for evolution, but once that evidence was given to you, you did not give any responce to that evidence. Instead, you are starting an entirely different line of attack. you are claiming that mutations could not have lead to evolution beyond your undefined 'kinds'. I think that is really bad form. I want to know what you think about the evidence that was given to you before moving the goalpost.
Comments like this keep coming, so let me repeat what I've said before: I am short on time. I read almost everything, but only post when I get extra time here and there.
I try not to ignore anything unless the poster tries to discredit using personal attacks, because that is a pathetic method of debate.
In this particular case, one of the first "Evidences" that was brought up was genetics and mutation. I simply don't have time to write some huge post responding to all of them at once, so I started there. I do plan to get to the others, it just takes time. (especially when I get 6-8 responses each time. Why do I get the feeling that this site is heavy on evolutionists and short on creationists. )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by fallacycop, posted 12-31-2008 10:12 PM fallacycop has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Percy, posted 01-01-2009 10:15 AM wardog25 has not replied
 Message 128 by bluegenes, posted 01-01-2009 11:21 AM wardog25 has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 127 of 493 (492557)
01-01-2009 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by wardog25
01-01-2009 9:34 AM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
wardog25 writes:
Why do I get the feeling that this site is heavy on evolutionists and short on creationists?
EvC Forum insists that arguments be backed by evidence. It's in the Forum Guidelines, and the moderators take special pains to enforce this requirement. Regardless of point of view, those who cannot support their positions with evidence don't usually last here very long.
But there's nothing in the Forum Guidelines about time requirements. Well-researched quality posted once in a while will be far more effective than frequent superficiality.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by wardog25, posted 01-01-2009 9:34 AM wardog25 has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 128 of 493 (492564)
01-01-2009 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by wardog25
01-01-2009 9:34 AM


Re: Macro-evolution sans fossils!
wardog25 writes:
In this particular case, one of the first "Evidences" that was brought up was genetics and mutation. I simply don't have time to write some huge post responding to all of them at once, so I started there. I do plan to get to the others, it just takes time.
I brought up pro-viruses back on post 79 Message 79 (we're still on that title!), and claimed that they were proof of macro-evolution beyond all reasonable doubt on their own. An attempt at an evidence backed refutation of my point might be interesting. I'm happy to find some interesting papers for you on the subject, if you care to address it, and to explain in more detail myself.
It's no good just asserting things like...
wardog25 writes:
Mutation has not been shown to be a reliable mechanism of healthy change, so it would have very little to do with this process.
...because mutation has been shown to be a reliable mechanism of "healthy" (beneficial) change in many experiments. Here's an example which involves not only the selection of simple beneficial single mutations, but also a more complex process illustrating a multi-mutation characteristic, and requiring historical contingency.
SOME REALLY INTERESTING BIOLOGY
But that's just an illustration of one of the ways in which evolution happens. My pro-virus point is more directly relevant to your request for evidence of macro-evolution without fossils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by wardog25, posted 01-01-2009 9:34 AM wardog25 has not replied

seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 5551 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 129 of 493 (492636)
01-01-2009 10:40 PM


evening all.
Lots of theories here. Still no evidence. Please can one of you point me to the organism that man sprang from all those billions of years ago? Once you have done that can you please explain to me how many transitional fossils (naming them would be nice) it would take for man to go from a single celled organism to what we are today?
Edited by seekingfirstthekingdom, : spellcheck
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fluffed up formatting a bit.

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Coyote, posted 01-01-2009 10:59 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied
 Message 131 by RAZD, posted 01-01-2009 11:08 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied
 Message 132 by Rahvin, posted 01-01-2009 11:25 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 130 of 493 (492638)
01-01-2009 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-01-2009 10:40 PM


Re: evening all.
lots of theories here.Still no evidence.Please can one of you point me to the organism that man sprang from all those billions of years ago?Once you have done that can you please explain to me how many transitional fossils(naming them would be nice)it would take for man to go from a single celled organism to what we are today?
Are you willing to consider evidence, and not just regurgitate creationist talking points?
From the framing of your question it would seem like your mind is already made up. If so, it would be a waste of time presenting evidence.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-01-2009 10:40 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 131 of 493 (492639)
01-01-2009 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-01-2009 10:40 PM


Re: evening all.
Welcome to the fray, seekingfirstthekingdom, and a happy new year.
Please can one of you point me to the organism that man sprang from all those billions of years ago?
The evidence points to some single-cell organisms somewhat similar to modern cyanobacteria some 3.5 billion years ago as the first known life in the fossil record.
Once you have done that can you please explain to me how many transitional fossils(naming them would be nice)it would take for man to go from a single celled organism to what we are today?
Again, the evidence points to all life, not just man, evolving from those original single cell organisms.
All fossils are transitional, as they are intermediate between those organisms that are their ancestors and those organisms that are their offspring. This is what transitional means in science: if you have a different definition, then you need to define what you are talking about.
The fossils that lead from that first life to man, through descent with modification, and forming the chain of common ancestors that we understand from the fossil record and the genetic record are but a small segment of the diversity of life that exists and has existed on earth. The evidence shows the same basic pattern of diversification of life for all known organisms that we see in our own history.
At any time in the past you could take a "snapshot" of the diversity of life existing and the organisms alive at that time, and you would see life existing and behaving in a manner similar to today: living, reproducing, surviving and perishing according to their abilities and traits.
lots of theories here.Still no evidence.
Denial of evidence does not make it disappear.
Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
For other formating tips see Posting Tips
If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-01-2009 10:40 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 132 of 493 (492641)
01-01-2009 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-01-2009 10:40 PM


Re: evening all.
lots of theories here.
All of science is "theories." The word "theory" as it pertains to science does not mean "an idea I had one day." A scientific theory is an explanatory framework supported by available evidence that has gone through rigorous testing and been generally accepted in the scientific community due to its demonstrated high degree of accuracy.
Still no evidence.
What evidence would you accept for evolution? What do you believe the Theory of Evolution states? If you have a misconception as to what the theory actually is, it would be no wonder that you would be skeptical. I have yet to see a Creationist source that accurately represents the Theory of Evolution. Even many public schools don't get it right.
Please can one of you point me to the organism that man sprang from all those billions of years ago?
This question is not related to the actual Theory of Evolution. Human beings did not "spring" fully formed from any other organism. Evolution is a slow, generational process that occurs over populations, not to individuals. There were no "monkeys" who gave birth to an "Adam" and an "Eve" for instance. An entire population of interbreeding individuals gradually evolved over multiple generations until eventually the result could be called homo sapiens. Over this long period many segments of the same population branched off and evolved in different ways.
Once you have done that can you please explain to me how many transitional fossils(naming them would be nice)it would take for man to go from a single celled organism to what we are today?
Again, this doesn't have anything to do with evolution. According to the Theory of Evolution, literally every fossil is transitional between its evolutionary ancestors and its descendants. typically, Creationists expect to find odd Chimaera-monstrosities along the lines of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - a creature that is for example "half-x and half-y." That's not the way it works. As a population evolves over generations, features will become more or less pronounced, and new features will occasionally arise - we don't expect to find the sort of transitionals that Creationists do in their ignorance of evolution. A look at the evolutionary history of humanity would show examples of fossils that are progressively less-human and more-apelike as you go further back in time.
But then, fossil evidence isn't even the best evidence for evolution. Observation of the process as it happens is. We have directly observed evolution working - college biology students watch new features evolve in the laboratory all the time. We have even observed new species' evolving.
We also have genetic evidence that leaves very clear lines of descent. In the same way that the police can use genetic testing to determine if a suspect and victim were related and how closely, we can tell the same about different species.
Unfortunately because single-celled organisms do not fossilize, we won't likely ever know specifically what the single-celled common ancestor of all Earth-bound life was like. It simply couldn't have left sufficient evidence of itself behind. What we can tell is that the genetic structure of all life on Earth is the same (with the possible exception of viruses who use exclusively RNA rather than DNA, but RNA and DNA themselves are very closely related).
So I ask again - what does the Theory of Evolution say, in your own words? What evidence would you expect us to find if it were an accurate model? If you have misconceptions, we can help fix them. If you are unaware of specific evidence, we can help with that as well. But the sort of questions you asked are not reasonable given the realities of biology and the amount of time involved in the evolutionary process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-01-2009 10:40 PM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-02-2009 12:10 AM Rahvin has replied

seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 5551 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 133 of 493 (492648)
01-02-2009 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Rahvin
01-01-2009 11:25 PM


Re: evening all.
thanks for your reply.However you didnt answer my questions.Im grateful that someone of your obvious intellect has taken the time out to make a post of that length.Address my first point please regarding the organism that man originated from.I know that man didnt spring fully formed from this single celled organism,yet there must of been a starting point.Whats the name of it and where has this organism been discovered.It would be a very interesting creature.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Rahvin, posted 01-01-2009 11:25 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Rahvin, posted 01-02-2009 12:18 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 134 of 493 (492650)
01-02-2009 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by seekingfirstthekingdom
01-02-2009 12:10 AM


Re: evening all.
thanks for your reply.However you didnt answer my questions.
Please re-read my post. I addressed each of your points and asked you questions of my own.
Im grateful that someone of your obvious intellect has taken the time out to make a post of that length.
I'm not nearly as well-versed in evolution as many here. We have actual scientists and professors on this board.
Address my first point please regarding the organism that man originated from.I know that man didnt spring fully formed from this single celled organism,yet there must of been a starting point.Whats the name of it and where has this organism been discovered.It would be a very interesting creature.
As I said in my previous post:
quote:
Unfortunately because single-celled organisms do not fossilize, we won't likely ever know specifically what the single-celled common ancestor of all Earth-bound life was like. It simply couldn't have left sufficient evidence of itself behind. What we can tell is that the genetic structure of all life on Earth is the same (with the possible exception of viruses who use exclusively RNA rather than DNA, but RNA and DNA themselves are very closely related).
Concluding that all life on Earth has a common ancestor does not require knowing the specific identity of that ancestor. Your question is both impossible to answer with the degree of specificity you're asking for and is irrelevant. I don't need to know the name and characteristics of my great grandfather to know that my cousins and I are related and all descend from him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-02-2009 12:10 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by seekingfirstthekingdom, posted 01-02-2009 1:01 AM Rahvin has replied

seekingfirstthekingdom
Member (Idle past 5551 days)
Posts: 51
Joined: 08-15-2008


Message 135 of 493 (492656)
01-02-2009 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Rahvin
01-02-2009 12:18 AM


Re: evening all.
so you cant name it then.Its actually relevant to a beginner like myself because if i was the sceptical sort i could possibly think you have arrived at a conclusion without providing any evidence whatsoever.Since we are going to make things up i have made a name off the top of my head for this organism that you cant provide proof for.Ill call it "magic yeast to human" or M.Y.T.H.What say you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Rahvin, posted 01-02-2009 12:18 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by subbie, posted 01-02-2009 1:08 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied
 Message 140 by Rahvin, posted 01-02-2009 2:04 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied
 Message 146 by fallacycop, posted 01-02-2009 2:55 AM seekingfirstthekingdom has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024