It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I will answer every question about evolution you have

page: 13
24
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Do you have any proof as to what came first the chicken or the egg?

Or the egg or the chicken?



I'm going to say 100% egg.




posted on Dec, 2 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: DaysLate
a reply to: Ghost147

Do you have any proof as to what came first the chicken or the egg?

Or the egg or the chicken?

I'm going to say 100% egg.


Yes, we do. If we take the question at a literal standpoint, the answer would actually be neither.

Chickens diverged from another species that also laid eggs. So it was a gradual change from their ancestor, to what we know them as today. Evolution occurs at a very slow, very gradual pace over successive generations. For a mutation to spontaneously occur that formed something as complex as Egg-Laying would actually disprove evolution.

Another way to look at it is that nothing is a 'fully formed' species, everything is simply in a state of transitioning. Because Evolution hasn't been observed to stop at any period in history, all life on earth is in a constant state of evolving. We only describe things as a species because we're viewing it from a particular snapshot in time.

Furthermore, if we were to look at the question from another perspective, it would technically be the egg, considering it's ancestors also laid eggs. So, the question would have to clarify which 'egg' it was referring to: 'The chicken or the chicken egg?' or, 'The chicken or egg laying?'

If we look at the question from a more generalized perspective - "what came first, the organism or the egg" - we can also show that organisms came first. The very earliest life reproduced Asexually, and so eggs and egg laying were a product of evolution.
edit on 2/12/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 05:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147




I posted an excerpt from an article that Eric Davidson wrote which confirms the information that Jean-François Gariépy's quote describes....


I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not arguing over what a GRN is. I am arguing that it cannot be changed slowly over time, not because it is physically incapable but because it is always detrimental to the organism. They have to come into existence all at once because of the way they work.




I did... Here is a direct quote from one of his articles about GNR's:

What is a GRN?
Development is controlled .....


I've done no such thing. You simply are not actually countering what I am talking about you are simply describing GRN's in vague ways. I mean the excerpt I gave you from Davidson's paper is not ambiguous. It clearly says that neo-darwinism assumes things that are counter factual.




As for your statement, it is simply incorrect, as I have shown, but you seem to refuse to acknowledge it for some reason - or are currently incapable of understanding the information


It has nothing to do with my intellect. I don't understand how you can't see that from an outside perspective drawings are not helpful at all. Sure that is the claimed lineage as you said thats a lot of information way to much for me to just assume is true. My burden of proof is simply higher than yours. Sorry I lack faith.




No, we don't. We know for a fact that they diverged from species that had both genders.


Your opinion doesn't make it fact sources? Not saying it isn't true, but I prefer people post source of there information because it is a forum and as such not very trustworthy source of info.




Nothing is conclusive when we're looking so far back and have very little (to no) evidence from that period of time. These are never implied as conclusive claims....



Then why do you build your entire world view off of evolutionary theory?




You seem to still be viewing these things as absolute claims, w....


What you are missing is I am saying we have no clue what mechanisms would cause new body plans to arise. We know for a fact random mutation and natural selection are not capable of it simply due to GRN's I don't need another piece of evidence to show you that. It disproves that part of the theory. We need some kind of new discovery for evolution to even get off the ground.




The answers I first gave you weren't claims of certainty, they were claims of possibilities.


Possibilities are not facts, nor are they testable.




I believe you may have missed the response where I directly quoted one of Davidson's papers, and came to my own conclusions, which my source confirmed.


No I saw it and read it. The paper just does nothing to contradict the paper I sent you before. You are confusing a description of the mechanisms with a description of how the mechanisms work as a whole.




Those assumptions aren’t baseless, however. We’re using our observations now to propose how it could have occurred back then.


They are baseless. We can't observe the past like you are pretending we can. We can do some cool stuff, but none of it gives us the required evidence to speak about body plan morphogenesis.




The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.


Wrong. You are confusing facts with possibilities. Those possibilities come from the interpretation your interpretation of the facts. The fossil is the fact. It gives some related data but none of it has to do with whether or not that particular fossil is an ancestor of another fossil that comes from your interpretation of the data. And it obviously isn't compelling or I would believe it occurred. Your source is 404.




You seem to think that don’t offer any insight at all to anything, when the observations are in fact evidence d.....


Of course they let us know when that animal existed and that one like it did exists. It doesn't tell us anything about what happened genetically. You just tried to compare evolution with subatomic particles. The difference is we infer what happens with subatomic particles using mathematical equations not by simply looking at a fossil and coming up with some way that fossil "could" have formed.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

It's amazing that you demand so much proof of science (which has been given to you already, yet you remain resolutely stubborn) - yet the only proof you need of your god is an ancient book complied by several people over the course of millenia that contains tons of factual errors.

Double standard much?



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: scorpio84

well his questions are on the point. If he would receive straight answers, he would not have anything left to ask. He makes a good point about GRNs from my shallow understanding after reading their posts.

And when you consider the thread title it is expected that someone with a lot of education or knowledge about evolution would appear to question the details of evolution which are not clear to us - people who are not into science of evolution.

if his questions are not answered that would mean that evolution is not so strong theory and more of a hypothesis. Which many fans of evolution hate to hear here on ATS or in general.

If mutations are not properly explained than evolution has no legs to stand on. That is why mutations needs to be questioned in detail. It is the basic thing.
Everyone can find the image about how dinosaur evolved into chicken. But images are not evidence, they are just pictures that conveniently omit the details because most folks are easily convinced with a picture. He just wants a clear understanding of the nature of how mutation works and is initiated.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity

No, he gets clear answers and plays dumb. Servant has a habit of doing that.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: scorpio84

Religious people do tend to be amazingly hypocritical, but I'm thankful for it. After all, I wouldn't want the otherwise kindhearted, say, Christians for instance feeling obligated to stone prostitutes like the Word of God orders them to. People tend to be very 'pick and choose' when it comes to their book of choice, and the parts they pick coincidentally tend to align with the beliefs they already held anyway. But I digress, this is about evolution.


if his questions are not answered that would mean that evolution is not so strong theory and more of a hypothesis. Which many fans of evolution hate to hear here on ATS or in general.


Evolution is not a hypothesis. It is a theory. I presume you actually know what a hypothesis is to make that statement, but I still feel you are incorrect. A good description of the process of natural selection is closer to a hypothesis.

It is generally important when questioning something to have a basic understanding of the thing you are questioning to begin with. There are two things called the founder and bottleneck effects that you should become familiar with.


If mutations are not properly explained than evolution has no legs to stand on. That is why mutations needs to be questioned in detail. It is the basic thing.
Everyone can find the image about how dinosaur evolved into chicken. But images are not evidence, they are just pictures that conveniently omit the details because most folks are easily convinced with a picture. He just wants a clear understanding of the nature of how mutation works and is initiated.


What explanation of mutation is missing? You must understand, when looking at things from a scientific perspective, knowledge of a certain subject tends to be asymptotic, especially in matters of history where no evidence exists or can ever hope to be found.
Everyone can find words about how God created the universe. But words are not evidence, they are just strings of letters.

Are you aware that in humans a good degree of pregnancies are naturally aborted because of catastrophically bad mutations? (Something like the sequence for the production of hemoglobin being screwed with, for instance.)



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: UniFinity

The GRN claim is based on a faulty understanding of the study he quoted. It's already been demonstrated. The stubbornness in defending this faulty position is what concerns me. Maybe he could respond to the quote from the expert? I don't think he will, he'll just repeat the original claim. There is nothing whatsoever in the research paper that suggests insertion mutations cannot happen due to GRNs. The GRNs are regulated by the mRna and come directly from the genes. Remember, most genetic mutations happen at conception. Servant of the Lamb seems to have a faulty understanding of how genetic mutations work and is throwing the assumption out there that there is a limit imposed by GRNs, which are controlled by the genes themselves.

If this magical limit existed, how does it explain the fact that we can map entire genomes from generation to generation and observe the exact changes to the genome. If this is possible, then why couldn't accumulation and hence evolution be possible? His point really doesn't make sense. It's your typical techno-babble type points. He relies on the average person not understanding the concept that he misrepresents. He says that new features cannot emerge because they require new GRNs, but neglects to understand that most mutations are neutral and are merely changes to the code itself, which wouldn't require new GRNS. Many of these neutral mutations build upon other mutations, so the features can slowly change. New features don't just suddenly emerge, they came from changes to existing code. I would imagine that insertion mutations could create new GRNs. Remember, this is conception, not midlife.
edit on 12 5 15 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: MrCrow
I'll ask a question. Homo sapiens: what will our next step be evolution-wise?


If you read some of my earlier comments, it will answer this question. But, to directly address it, it would be determined by the environment around us. Everything living adapts to it's surrounding, if it doesn't it ends up being weeded out through natural selection.

Humans are an interesting species, because we've cutout a lot of natural selection by living in ways that prevent the environment from intruding on our survival (at least, to the best of our abilities).

Another thing to note would be that Evolution doesn't occur at a species wide level, it actually occurs at a population level. If a species is widespread enough to have groups of their population living in a specific, but different, environment from one another, each population would adapt to their own, specific, environments.

It's one reason we have so much variation in Humans to begin with. Skin colour, Hair texture, muscular features, facial features, red blood cell count, viral immunity, and so on. The variation is do to these different environments.

Some technological futurists have supposed that the convergence between humans and technology is our next step of evolution, and may be our last step before become a total 'singularity', where we essentially surpass our biological forms and become machines, to some extent.


originally posted by: piney
What observable evidence did you witness that made you believe in evolution
show me so that I too may believe

For if you fail to show this evidence
Then you will be seen as a lier
Making false accusations

I will give you 100 years to present your evidence
Because I know there is no evidence


I've actually addressed your question in the other topic you posted in here. Of course, you're more than welcome to read the other responses I've given in this thread that also give a clear representation of evolution.

If you're still not convinced, could you specify an exact issue you have with Evolution, so I can address it specifically?


as a follow up to what you just explained right there, i have another question: in your opinion, what are the likely consequences of our applying our mechanical and chemical prowess to...darwin-proof ourselves, if you will. do you think this poses a risk of stalling us? is there a possibility we could hijack evolution entirely and reengineer the human race?

...and one more thing - is there any compelling evidence that a sentient agency has been steering evolution this whole time? for the benefit of those reading.

edit on 5-12-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: scorpio84

What factual errors does it contain?



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I think it would take less time to list the things it does get right.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not arguing over what a GRN is. I am arguing that it cannot be changed slowly over time, not because it is physically incapable but because it is always detrimental to the organism. They have to come into existence all at once because of the way they work.


This is not a factual claim. A slow accumulation of mutations occurs in every single organism; we can prove this (and I already have). Furthermore, we know it's not detrimental to the organism because this accumulation of minute mutations occurs, and they still continue reproducing and living in a perfectly healthy condition.

Here are several examples of this gradual change occurring (whilst also producing new species):


Bullini, L and Nascetti, G, 1991, Speciation by Hybridization in phasmids and other insects, Canadian Journal of Zoology, Volume 68(8), pages 1747-1760.

Ramadevon, S and Deaken, M.A.B., 1991, The Gibbons speciation mechanism, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 145(4) pages 447-456.

Sharman, G.B., Close, R.L, Maynes, G.M., 1991, Chromosome evolution, phylogeny, and speciation of rock wallabies, Australian Journal of Zoology, Volume 37(2-4), pages 351-363.

Werth, C. R., and Windham, M.D., 1991, A model for divergent, allopatric, speciation of polyploid pteridophytes resulting from silencing of duplicate- gene expression, AM-Natural, Volume 137(4):515-526.

Spooner, D.M., Sytsma, K.J., Smith, J., A Molecular reexamination of diploid hybrid speciation of Solanum raphanifolium, Evolution, Volume 45, Number 3, pages 757-764.

Arnold, M.L., Buckner, C.M., Robinson, J.J., 1991, Pollen-mediated introgression and hybrid speciation in Louisiana Irises, P-NAS-US, Volume 88, Number 4, pages 1398-1402.

Nevo, E., 1991, Evolutionary Theory and process of active speciation and adaptive radiation in subterranean mole rats, spalax-ehrenbergi superspecies, in Israel, Evolutionary Biology, Volume 25, pages 1-125.

Weiberg, James R.. Starczak, Victoria R.. Jorg, Daniele. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. V46. P1214(7) August, 1992.

Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. (rapid fish speciation in African lakes). Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.

Hauffe, Heidi C.. Searle, Jeremy B.. A disappearing speciation event? (response to J.A. Coyne, Nature, vol. 355, p. 511, 1992). Nature. V357. P26(1) May 7, 1992.

Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992.

Rabe, Eric W.. Haufler, Christopher H.. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum; Adiantaceae)? The American Journal of Botany. V79. P701(7) June, 1992.

Nores, Manuel. Bird speciation in subtropical South America in relation to forest expansion and retraction. The Auk. V109. P346(12) April, 1992.




originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
I've done no such thing. You simply are not actually countering what I am talking about you are simply describing GRN's in vague ways. I mean the excerpt I gave you from Davidson's paper is not ambiguous. It clearly says that neo-darwinism assumes things that are counter factual.


And in the quote I gave you, also from Davidson's paper, shows that your view on what he meant by the line you quoted does not represent what he actually meant.

A few comments ago you stated: "No new morphological features like an eye cannot arise solely thru the mutation of DNA and natural selection. The reason it cannot is because it would require an entirely new dGRN." and I already showed you that DNA is the whole reason why GRN's exist. So if there is a change to the DNA there is a change to when a GRN is produced.

Listen, with all due respect, and from what I can tell, you're not a scientist. Nor am I a scientist. So I actually went out and found a scientist who has studied this information, and asked him what Davidson's research really means to evolution. That individual, whom is a scientist, clearly showed that Davidson's research does not conflict with evolution in the way you're assuming it does. Now, Unless you are claiming to know more than the guy with the PHD, then I would say the conflict is resolved, because we are both less qualified to answer and come to the conclusions you originally presented.

You're free to reject my sources response if you still wish, but, that certainly does not make his response any less reputable or factual. Believe it or not, but you may simply be misunderstanding what Davidson wrote.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
It has nothing to do with my intellect. I don't understand how you can't see that from an outside perspective drawings are not helpful at all.


The reason why illustrations are used in science is because it allows for an easier way to understand the extremely detailed information from an outside perspective.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Sure that is the claimed lineage as you said thats a lot of information way to much for me to just assume is true. My burden of proof is simply higher than yours. Sorry I lack faith.


It has nothing to do with faith. It’s just common knowledge that biological illustrations exist to depict things which are excessively complicated in an uncomplicated way.

Which image is easier for you to understand?



or



Secondly, a phylogenetic tree isn’t a ‘drawing’ or a biological illustration, it is simply a diagram showing the inferred evolutionary relationships between various species, or other entities. It is not necessary to show the image of the organisms because that explains nothing to a person who has no idea what those organisms are. The name allows you to find more information about it than the image.

Do you really think it’s necessary for me to find all the scientific articles that show that dogs descended from wolves, if I were to post a evolutionary tree of dogs?

The amount of information that you require for me to use even the most common things while discussing anything is astronomical. It’s not that your ‘burden of proof is simply higher than others’, its that you don’t realize how unnecessary your requests are to prove a point.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Your opinion doesn't make it fact sources? Not saying it isn't true, but I prefer people post source of there information because it is a forum and as such not very trustworthy source of info.


Here you go:


Cnemidophorus angusticeps
Cnemidophorus arenivagus
Cnemidophorus arizonae
Cnemidophorus arubensis
Cnemidophorus burti
Cnemidophorus calidipes
Cnemidophorus ceralbensis
Cnemidophorus communis
Cnemidophorus costatus
Cnemidophorus cozumelae
Cnemidophorus cryptus
Cnemidophorus deppei
Cnemidophorus dixoni
Cnemidophorus exsanguis
Cnemidophorus flagellicaudus
Cnemidophorus gramivagus
Cnemidophorus gularis
Cnemidophorus guttatus
Cnemidophorus gypsi
Cnemidophorus hyperythrus
Cnemidophorus inornatus
Cnemidophorus labialis
Cnemidophorus lacertoides
Cnemidophorus laredoensis
Cnemidophorus leachei
Cnemidophorus lemniscatus
Cnemidophorus lineattissimus
Cnemidophorus littoralis
Cnemidophorus longicaudus
Cnemidophorus marmoratus
Cnemidophorus martyris
Cnemidophorus maximus
Cnemidophorus mexicanus
Cnemidophorus motaguae
Cnemidophorus mumbuca
Cnemidophorus murinus
Cnemidophorus nativo
Cnemidophorus neomexicanus
Cnemidophorus neotesselatus
Cnemidophorus nigricolor
Cnemidophorus ocellifer
Cnemidophorus opatae
Cnemidophorus pai
Cnemidophorus parecis
Cnemidophorus parvisocius
Cnemidophorus pseudolemniscatus
Cnemidophorus rodecki
Cnemidophorus sackii
Cnemidophorus scalaris
Cnemidophorus septemvittatus
Cnemidophorus serranus
Cnemidophorus sexlineatus
Cnemidophorus sonorae
Cnemidophorus tesselatus
Cnemidophorus tigris
Cnemidophorus uniparens
Cnemidophorus vacariensis
Cnemidophorus vanzoi
Cnemidophorus velox
Aspidoscelis angusticeps
Aspidoscelis arizonae
Aspidoscelis bacata
Aspidoscelis burti
Aspidoscelis calidipes
Aspidoscelis cana
Aspidoscelis carmenensis
Aspidoscelis catalinensis
Aspidoscelis celeripes
Aspidoscelis ceralbensis
Aspidoscelis communis
Aspidoscelis costata
Aspidoscelis cozumelae
Aspidoscelis danheimae
Aspidoscelis deppei
Aspidoscelis dixoni
Aspidoscelis exsanguis
Aspidoscelis flagellicauda
Aspidoscelis gularis
Aspidoscelis guttata
Aspidoscelis gypsi
Aspidoscelis hyperythra
Aspidoscelis inornata
Aspidoscelis labialis
Aspidoscelis laredoensis
Aspidoscelis lineattissima
Aspidoscelis marmorata
Aspidoscelis martyris
Aspidoscelis maslini
Aspidoscelis maxima
Aspidoscelis mexicana
Aspidoscelis motaguae
Aspidoscelis neomexicana
Aspidoscelis neotesselata
Aspidoscelis opatae
Aspidoscelis pai
Aspidoscelis parvisocia
Aspidoscelis picta
Aspidoscelis rodecki
Aspidoscelis sackii
Aspidoscelis scalaris
Aspidoscelis septemvittata
Aspidoscelis sexlineata
Aspidoscelis sonorae
Aspidoscelis stictogramma
Aspidoscelis tesselata
Aspidoscelis uniparens
Aspidoscelis velox
Aspidoscelis xanthonota


Reeder, Tod W.; Dessauer, Herbert C.; Cole, Charles J. (2002) Phylogenetic relationships of whiptail lizards of the genus Cnemidophorus (Squamata, Teiidae) : a test of monophyly, reevaluation of karyotypic evolution, and review of hybrid origins. American Museum novitates no. 3365: 1-61.

Bauer, Aaron M. (1998). Cogger, H.G. & Zweifel, R.G., ed. Encyclopedia of Reptiles and Amphibians. San Diego: Academic Press. pp. 170–171. ISBN 0-12-178560-2.

Collins, H. M. & Pinch, T. J. (1993). The Golem: What You Should Know about Science. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, pp. 109-119.

Pianka, E. R. and L. J. Vitt. 2003 Lizards: Windows to the evolution of diversity. University of California Press. Berkeley.

"Aspidoscelis sexlineata". Illinois Natural History Survey. University of Illinois. “Etymology: Aspidoscelis - aspido (Greek) shield; -skelos (Greek) meaning leg”

The Reptile Database. www.reptile-database.org.

Lutes, Aracely A.; Baumann, Diana P.; Neaves, William B.; Baumann, Peter. (2011). "Laboratory synthesis of an independently reproducing vertebrate species". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108 (24): 9910-9915. doi:10.1073/pnas.1102811108.

Fitzinger L. 1843. Systema Reptilium, Fasciculus Primus, Amblyglossae. Vienna: Braumüller & Seidel. 106 pp. + indices. (Aspidoscelis, p. 20).


Do you really want me to post this much information every single time I mention anything with a scientific name?
edit on 5/12/15 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: solve
a reply to: Ghost147

I have always wondered, that what is the final form of our jawbone,, it seems, that it is going to disappear..

just finished assembling some reptile jaws, there was so many parts compared to mammals...


The jaw is actually a really interesting set of bones to look at. In a number of species you can still see the fusion between different sections of the jaw where it once used to be separated in ancestral species.

As for your first line in your response, Evolution doesn't really have a 'final form', technically everything is just another transition from it's current form, to whatever the next form will be. In 1000 years, or several thousand years, or millions of years, if humans still exist, we would likely be classified as a different species under the Homo genus, simply because we would have diverged so far from what we currently are now.


originally posted by: MrCrow
I'm confused a little - why did "Raggedyman" not start the thread themselves? Post count too low to start one perhaps?


I'm not quite sure. He was either bluffing, as he has yet to post (and I responded to his comment in the other thread almost immediately), He didn't really thing I was going to do it, or he was a bit too flustered to realize that he probably should have been the one to start it. He did seem pretty agitated in the other topic.


When you mention the jawbone being disconnected, do you mean the chin divided into two? I think we can look at the jawbone between a man and a woman. Some women are born with extremely masculine jawlines, while other males are born with feminine jawlines. Which leads to my questioning of transgender men/women and thinking this possibility of evolution itself as only being human.

EF



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

It makes my day when myself or another fellow truther can exclaim without questioning the undoubtable resources and evidence, yet people still throw it out the window as it is nothing. A little off topic, it seems their freewill won't allow this, or has been taken away (Have been having this discussion of freewill a lot today).

EF



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147Then why do you build your entire world view off of evolutionary theory?


Because it has evidence that supports it, and it’s our current, best explanation for how modern life came to be.

Also, the Theory of Evolution isn’t a ‘world view’, it is just a scientific theory that describes how the phenomenon of Biological Evolution functions.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
What you are missing is I am saying we have no clue what mechanisms would cause new body plans to arise.


I find it ironic that you say “we have no low what mechanisms cause new body plans” and then list GRN’s as evidence of a mechanism that causes body plans.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
We know for a fact random mutation and natural selection are not capable of it simply due to GRN's I don't need another piece of evidence to show you that. It disproves that part of the theory.


Again, it’s not that random mutation and natural selection are not capable, it’s that you don’t understand what Davidson is saying.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
We need some kind of new discovery for evolution to even get off the ground.


Which you already stated in an earlier post that GRN’s were the cause of? or are you changing your position again?


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Possibilities are not facts, nor are they testable.


Do I REALLY need to post, in every single response to you, that NO ONE is claiming anything is absolute fact?

Observations are testable. The observations are the things that are fact.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147

No I saw it and read it. The paper just does nothing to contradict the paper I sent you before. You are confusing a description of the mechanisms with a description of how the mechanisms work as a whole.

How am I confusing it when I have a source that has a PHD in Neurosciences and has actually studied GRN’s which confirms my original post about it?

Are you more qualified than the guy with a PHD in Neurosciences? I have my doubts. of course, you’re more than welcome to find your own sources which can confirm your position. Until then, it seems clear you are the one who is misunderstanding Davidson’s research.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147

They are baseless. We can't observe the past like you are pretending we can. We can do some cool stuff, but none of it gives us the required evidence to speak about body plan morphogenesis.

Right, just like all scientific information presented in a court are baseless. The forensic team wasn’t there at the crime, how could they possibly know what occurred?

They don’t know for certain, because nothing in science is absolute certainty. What forensic scientists present is the most plausible scenario. nothing more. That is the same thing that evolutionary biologists use.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Wrong. You are confusing facts with possibilities. Those possibilities come from the interpretation your interpretation of the facts. The fossil is the fact. It gives some related data but none of it has to do with whether or not that particular fossil is an ancestor of another fossil that comes from your interpretation of the data. And it obviously isn't compelling or I would believe it occurred.

Once again. Nothing in evolutionary biology claims to be absolute. I’ve told you this one hundred times and i’ll keep telling you this until it bursts through the wall of willful ignorance you have in place. The information gathered from Fossils is not absolute fact, it’s simply our best evidence that portrays lineage.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Your source is 404.


Which source? I can find a more active one.



originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Ghost147
Of course they let us know when that animal existed and that one like it did exists. It doesn't tell us anything about what happened genetically. You just tried to compare evolution with subatomic particles. The difference is we infer what happens with subatomic particles using mathematical equations not by simply looking at a fossil and coming up with some way that fossil "could" have formed.


We don’t need DNA to show that ‘this species’ and ‘this species’ were likely related. DNA is definitely a valuable tool, but it’s not our only tool. We can see similarities in bone structure in all modern animals that are also directly related to each other. The fact that we have this just verifies that using bones as a source for helping us depict biological relationships isn’t ‘baseless’ as you claim.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: ExternalForces
When you mention the jawbone being disconnected, do you mean the chin divided into two?


Yes, that would be one part of the jawbone that was previously two, and had since fused together. The lower jawbone is still separated in some species.


originally posted by: ExternalForces
I think we can look at the jawbone between a man and a woman. Some women are born with extremely masculine jawlines, while other males are born with feminine jawlines. Which leads to my questioning of transgender men/women and thinking this possibility of evolution itself as only being human.


I'm not totally sure what you mean by this. You believe evolution only applies to Homo sapiens?



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Apologies, context was off a bit. I was only examining humans at that moment. I believe evolution represents all realm of existence. Who knows, maybe even God evolves? Holy smokes, that made my brain hurt.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ExternalForces

Well, from many creationist standpoints comes the claim "Everything had to have come from something", so the same claim could be applied to a god too, evolution could potentially be the cause of that if a god is actually a living creature. Of course, everything would be speculative on that matter.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: ExternalForces

Well, from many creationist standpoints comes the claim "Everything had to have come from something", so the same claim could be applied to a god too, evolution could potentially be the cause of that if a god is actually a living creature. Of course, everything would be speculative on that matter.


Either the universe is proof that god requires a creator, or god is proof that the universe doesn't require a creator. ...Checkmate?

In any case, this is an evolution thread. Cosmology vs creationism is a different debate.
edit on 5-12-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
24
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join