Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9057 total)
238 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, PaulK, Tangle, Theodoric (5 members, 233 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,866 Year: 978/6,534 Month: 978/682 Week: 31/182 Day: 5/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do you define the word Evolution?
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 540 of 936 (807138)
05-01-2017 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 534 by Dredge
05-01-2017 12:34 AM


Useful knowledge!
Dredge writes:

Please be advised that coming up with stories about how life was invented is nothing more than an historical curiosity. It is irrelevant to applied biology.

To drive a car, or to fix or improve a car, I don't need to know the story of how cars came to be invented or how cars evolved from simpler machines to what they are now. All I need is what is there now and how it works.

Can't you think of any possible way that the provenance of a car could be of use to a mechanic?

Let's give ourselves a practical medical problem. We have a sick llama on our hands, but no vet who has experience with the species. Of the vets available, three are specialists in cows and pigs, one in sheep, one is from South America and has experience with sloths and opossums, and one has worked in the Middle East with camels.

I'm the common descent "evolutionist". I have my tree of life before me. I know which one to call. A creationist does not!

Dredge writes:

In other words, fossils are useful for embellishing a useless historical curiosity/theory that cannot be verified as fact.

Would you like to talk us through what you think is insufficient about the current molecular evidence for us to consider all known life forms as having common ancestry to be a fact? New thread?

Big deal. Empty beer bottles are more useful than fossils.

Expensive fossils

Edited by bluegenes, : grammar


This message is a reply to:
 Message 534 by Dredge, posted 05-01-2017 12:34 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 572 of 936 (807309)
05-02-2017 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 571 by Dredge
05-02-2017 6:20 AM


Re: If Not, What?
Dredge writes:

The DNA of an earthworm contains 10.465 infos; the DNA of a human being contains 3,356,298,112.2089 infos.

No. Size isn't everything.

Here's some info for you

quote:

The largest genomes belongs to a very small creature, Amoeba dubia. This protozoan genome has 670 billion units of DNA, or base pairs. The genome of a cousin, Amoeba proteus, has a mere 290 billion base pairs, making it 100 times larger than the human genome.

And size is easily achieved because duplications are common.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 571 by Dredge, posted 05-02-2017 6:20 AM Dredge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 589 by Dredge, posted 05-03-2017 2:03 AM bluegenes has responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 593 of 936 (807436)
05-03-2017 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 589 by Dredge
05-03-2017 2:03 AM


New thread required.
Dredge writes:

Thank you for that very interesting information. But somewhere in the mix a human being contains more genetic information than an amoeba.

In Message 522 you claim:

Dredge writes:

In order for all life to have evolved from a common ancestor, mutations must produce limitless increases in the information stored in DNA. But genetics science cannot demonstrate that mutations produce limitless increases in the information stored in DNA.

I doubt if you meant "limitless" literally, but, if life evolved from one ancestor, then evolutionary processes would certainly have to produce all the "information" around today. In your second sentence, you use "limitless" again. Did you mean to say that genetics cannot demonstrate that lots of new information can be added?

As it's off topic here, would you like a thread on which you could support that claim? Shall I start it, or do you want to put the claim (preferably without "limitless" in it) in your own words?

You also said this:

Dredge writes:

The mutations seen in bacteria are like a merry-go-round ... they are constantly in motion but they don't actually go anywhere.

You could try to support that as well on the same thread, although it might not be wise.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 589 by Dredge, posted 05-03-2017 2:03 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 626 of 936 (807702)
05-05-2017 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 625 by CRR
05-04-2017 9:50 PM


Increase in information thread?
CRR writes:

In a 2007 PNAS paper, Robert Hazen and colleagues, including Szostak, mathematically defined functional information.....

"Functional" is why I mentioned the enormous Amoeba genome in Message 572, and pointed out that size alone is easily achieved by duplication.

In Message 593, I suggested a new thread to Dredge, as he seemed to be implying by this:

Dredge writes:

Message 522 In order for all life to have evolved from a common ancestor, mutations must produce limitless increases in the information stored in DNA. But genetics science cannot demonstrate that mutations produce limitless increases in the information stored in DNA.

that "genetics science" cannot demonstrate that mutations produce enough increase in functional information for the life we see around us, although his use of "limitless" is presumably not to be taken literally.

Perhaps you agree with him.

As there's plenty of evidence for past increases in "information" (in the sense of added coding genes) via mutation and selection, I find this kind of claim odd, and think it should be supported.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 625 by CRR, posted 05-04-2017 9:50 PM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 627 by Pressie, posted 05-05-2017 4:45 AM bluegenes has not yet responded

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(2)
Message 666 of 936 (808664)
05-12-2017 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 665 by Dredge
05-12-2017 5:07 AM


Nearly extinct
Dredge writes:

If you want to learn more about the fossil record, read creationist science.

Do you advise this on the basis that living fossils declaiming from pulpits should understand long dead ones found in rocks?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 665 by Dredge, posted 05-12-2017 5:07 AM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022