|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
aristotle Junior Member (Idle past 2502 days) Posts: 16 Joined: |
The exon/intron divergence can be satisfactorily explained as the result of the relative overabundance of synonymous sites involved in CpG dinucleotides:
Neutral Substitutions Occur at a Faster Rate in Exons Than in Noncoding DNA in Primate Genomes "I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
aristotle Junior Member (Idle past 2502 days) Posts: 16 Joined: |
For discussion's sake, if there was a creator, why is it that you think life could not be created in this hierarchical phylogenetic structure?
Edited by aristotle, : No reason given."I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
aristotle Junior Member (Idle past 2502 days) Posts: 16 Joined: |
A common ancestry does not disprove creation, nor does it prove evolution.
If there were a transitional species for each and every genetic advancement, that would be proof of evolution.That's not the case. The species don't progress little bit by little bit, but remain constant over long periods, and are abruptly replaced. Here's a challenge, pick any modern species. Now go and find at least one individual transitional organism for each beneficial mutation that changed said species into it's current form. That would prove evolution beyond a doubt, over 100 years later, we're still waiting to be shown the missing links. Edited by aristotle, : No reason given. Edited by aristotle, : No reason given."I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
aristotle Junior Member (Idle past 2502 days) Posts: 16 Joined: |
Wow you assume very much!
I do not know whether or not there was a creator, I was merely asking why, if one did exist, it could not create life forms in this hierarchical way. And planting fossils? Seriously? Don't try pigeonhole me as some idiot bible basher, I'm not claiming god buried the fossils to trick us! The fossils could just be older creations. And why must it be in one moment of creation? Why wouldn't it create something, observe, modify, etc. Over long periods of time, why do you assume the creation must all be in 'one moment'. Regards, aristotle"I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
aristotle Junior Member (Idle past 2502 days) Posts: 16 Joined: |
Thanks for the reply RAZD
Nope. Curiously your choosing this icon demonstrates ignorance of how science works. You have a lot to learn, it appears, and this is a good place to learn it ... if you are willing to learn. The essential difference between religion and science is a willingness to learn and change beliefs through evidence. I have studied evolution a long time, learned a lot about it, and it is very much like a religion in that it is unprovable by definition. We can only assume that the organisms who survived where the most evolved, we can never prove this. Anyone who says different is immediately labeled 'ignorant' (see above), reminds me a lot of religion.
As I have said many times, the closest fit to "kinds" as the term is used by creationists is clades. Yes you lot seem to have trouble with definitions, as I recall, Darwin could not even precisely define the word 'species'.
They form a nested structure where all descendants come from the parent clade population by breeding within their populations. Evolution occurs in those populations in response to ecological challenges leading to gradual changes in each population, isolation leads to different changes and thus to speciation. Again, you can only retrospectively assume that to be the truth. This has never been known to happen, a mutation has never added information to the genome, it's not that easy.
Some do, some don't. You are talking about punctuated equilibrium. Not all evolution occurs through that mechanism. 'Punctuated Equilibrium' is a ludicrous theory invented by evolutionists to try explain away the trend of saltation in the fossil record. Don't try using it on me, won't work. One of the predictions for the theory is that the evidence (transitional species) will not be found, so the evidence is that their is no evidence! It's truly ludicrous.
How much change are you expecting to see? This is an important question because a lot of creationists seem to have false expectations. Is a black mouse different enough from a tan mouse to make it a new species? According to evolution by natural selection, saltations are impossible, an organism must evolve one genetic variation at a time. Therefore, I expect to see one organism for each genetic variation that lead to the organism's current form. If there is not an organism linking each and every genetic advancement to it's predecessor, how can we be sure saltations did not take place? Regards, aristotle"I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
aristotle Junior Member (Idle past 2502 days) Posts: 16 Joined: |
Nothing in science is "proved" So you agree that evolution cannot be proved to be true? Edited by aristotle, : No reason given."I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
aristotle Junior Member (Idle past 2502 days) Posts: 16 Joined: |
The process of evolution is observed in every generation, the theory of evolution explains the fossil evidence and the genetic evidence. Evolution has never been observed to happen anywhere, and cannot explain complex biological systems.
For someone who "studied evolution a long time, learned a lot about it" you should know that this statement is an incorrect portrayal of evolution. There is no "most evolved" organism -- all life on the planet has evolved the same amount. Not the Nautilus. If evolution were true the Nautilus would have a lens for it's eye by now. And by 'most evolved' I simply meant that they had the more desirable characteristics, compared to those individuals who did not survive.
Similarly your statements re "survival of the fittest" in your proposed topic are inaccurate at portraying how evolution works. Evolution occurs through those that survive and reproduce. They don't have to be the best at it, they just need to be good enough to get by. So wouldn't it follow that the best at reproducing would reproduce?
(1) The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities for growth, development, survival and reproductive success in changing or different habitats. This process is observed to occur and thus it is demonstrated documented fact. That is not natural selection leading to the evolution of the organism. That is the inherent ability in the organism to adapt to it's surroundings. We now know that populations have their own equilibrium mechanisms, and are not just kept in check by the random stimuli of surroundings.
Speciation has been observed in the fossil record, in the genetic record and in the world today, it is a fact that speciation occurs. When you have speciation you have a clade, composed of the parent population and the two daughter populations. How can you say that speciation occurs, if you don't even know what the word 'species' means?
Evolution occurs whether "information" is added or not. So you claim, but all that DNA is, is information. If there is an advancement in DNA there is an advancement of information, they're one and the same.
So you're going to ignore the evidence of transitions I posted -- will that make the evidence go away? Again there was no information from your page about the plankton fossils that convinced me that there were different species, they all looked very similar.
Bully for you. You didn't answer my question ("Is a black mouse different enough from a tan mouse to make it a new species?") Whether it is or not, you didn't answer the question of why there aren't the transitionals you'd expect to see.
Because we can observe generation by generation the changes in the frequency of traits in the breeding populations and we don't see the sudden change of saltation ... except in the cases of polyploidy. Oh really? You can go back in time and observe each transitional generation? Well that is really something."I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
aristotle Junior Member (Idle past 2502 days) Posts: 16 Joined: |
The facts of evolution are proved. Not at all
The theory of evolution is the single best explanation for that given set of facts. Not at all
And theories are never proved, but rather supported or disproved. Right, so you agree that the theory of evolution cannot be proved.
If you had read my definitions instead of looking for a cheap "gotcha" you might have learned something. I did learn something: how dogmatically you lot cling to your theories "I have learned from my own embarrassing experience how easy it is to concoct remarkably persuasive Darwinian explanations that evaporate on closer inspection." - Daniel Dennet
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024