No time for Evolution?

a reply to: neoholographic
Here is a bit of a tangent example:
Two of my friends have transcription errors in their DNA.
Cali is double-jointed in her thumb, and this appreciably has no consequence or special aspect.
Jenna, has a second ankle bone on each foot...it's tough to describe, but she essentially has a X pattern where her ankle is.
Jenna plays Baseball and is remarkably fast. She batted 1000 in Highschool and was in Sports illustrated. Doctors said she has more support and strength in her feet though and her burst speed is effected because of her ankle bones being that way. That is Evolution.

Edit:
Again though Evolution is a many part definition. While my story about Jenna greatly displays the aspects of Evolution, it still falls short in this causing her to become the dominant species. It would take thousands of years even from this point, for her double ankle to become a normal part of our society through standard breeding. If people were less sophisticated and we still lived in the Jungle and needed to run fast, perhaps the double-ankle would become dominant, but without mass casualties and a specific trait to overcome it, evolution cannot exist.

The most modern-day example would be being that person immune to the Zombie virus. That would be evolution, where your genetics rises to the occasion and were able to beat the environment. Your children would be immune, and your species would be the next contender for the planet.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

That's possibly what it was. I always get abiogenesis and evolution mixed up

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Yes I accessed the paper (one of the nice things about working in science, you can access papers in many subjects, for no extra cost, and they encourage us to explore).

I say again, there is not enough data. I'm not saying its not right, what I am saying is it is in the "watch this" space not the "f*ck me what was that" space of information.

Now timeline.

(a) What does it matter? Evolution still happened. Pushing a time line BACK does not help disprove evolution, all it does is ask us to alter some of our ideas.

(b) We don't know WHEN the first living things (by our definitions) arose.

(c) As always Abiogenesis/Proteogenesis (first life) etc have no influence on the theory of evolution, and when people put the two together saying that they MUST be linked, they need to prove it beyond saying it does.

I know its pedantic. However there really is no major implication for evolution from this point of data, beyond "there was more time". That last bit royally screws the "there was not enough time for evolution" crowd over doesn't it? So they will then either blame the debil or "faulty radiometric dating techniques" to wiggle out of that one. Kirk Cameron will then say the Banana is indeed proof of Gods hand in evolution, missing that humans created the modern banana he so loves ((kinky)

a reply to: neoholographic

You keep shouting that something "must be so" yet you show no proof.

Tell you what, lets assume you are going to call me, or something I say asinine too, and get to the point where you ingore the questions we've been asking you all thread. Lets jump too:

Show us the evidence, in a peer reviewed paper.

If you can't do that, you have lost.

a reply to: neoholographic

We know HOW evolution occurs. You know Deoxyribonucleic acid and all those naughty god refusing mutations It does not matter how it got there, and here is a hint, DNA is probably not the first genetic molecule life used. Hint hint.

So to understand evolution, you don't need to understand biogenesis.

Now go refute gravity like a good chap, flap those arms on the way down

a reply to: Noinden

You said:

It does not matter how it got there

LOL!!!

Your blind belief is strong!

We never say in Science:

It does not matter how it got there

That's just ASININE!

Of course it matters especially when you make statement like EVOLUTION MUST HAVE LIFE! The Origin of this life, that evolution must have to exist is paramount.

That's like saying,"We understand General Relativity and Gravity on a classical level, so it doesn't matter how it got there so let's just scrap all theories about quantum gravity." LOL!!

You can't be serious!

Darwinist are so blinded by their belief in evolution, they make these broad silly comments and they truly don't realize how ridiculous they sound.

Imagine if when we discovered the universe was expanding and just said, we understand what expansion of the universe means so there's no need for any theories to try and explain it because IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW IT GOT HERE LOL!!

Or, when we discovered the universe is close to uniform in all directions, we could have said, we understand uniformity so IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW IT GOT THERE!!!

Science doesn't say this just belief. So evolution just magically appeared and it doesn't matter how it got there LOL

a reply to: neoholographic

Still no evidence to back up your opinion I see. Hardly shocking as opinion is all you have.

MES is about what happened to life AFTER it existed. Notice the the word in capitals? I'll help you see it easier. AFTER

a reply to: neoholographic

No my understanding of what the theory of evolution is about is strong. Oh and look you broke out asinine, it must be nearing its 10K service, and you will need to have a rental word to roll out while its in the shoo.

What do you know about what we say in science? You clearly have never done science. Science is not always about "how something got somewhere". No science is the understanding of the physical measurable universe. That might be "how something got somewhere" it also is more likely to be "how something does something".

Once again you roll out physics, to try and form an analogy with biology (molecular biology in this case).

A couple of things you may miss:

(a) No one uses the phrase "Darwinist" these days. Except creationists. Thus we assign you as a creationist.
(b) You don't believe in evolution, any more than you believe in thermodynamics, kinetics, SN1 and SN2 mechanisms, and Gravity. Guess what those are also not compleatly understood, yet they happen. IF you are not willing to test gravity, test kinetics or thermodynamics See if they don't hold true.
(c) Science has no belief in it, only data. Because the laws of the universe are not a deity, they don't demand belief, they just are. You can choose not to believe evolution, it still happens, even as hard as it is to believe, but even with you.

Now answer the questions you are dodging neighbor.

a reply to: neoholographic

Can you explain how the difference between life arising from non-life vs. the first primitive life being created by a god changes our understanding of genetic changes sorted by natural selection as the explanation for biodiversity?

a reply to: GetHyped

Oh oh oh oh, I know!

*puts hand up*

The answer is........"reasons".

a reply to: TerryDon79

Sorry mate, not enough ALL CAPS and bolded text to be compelling enough for me.

a reply to: GetHyped

Dang it.

What about....."OTHER REASONS"?

I thought the Itallic AND underline would help with the emphasis.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Attaboy! Sold.

a reply to: Noinden

You said:

Guess what those are also not compleatly understood, yet they happen.

BINGO LOL!!!

You have just said what I have been saying the entire post. Again, you said:

b) You don't believe in evolution, any more than you believe in thermodynamics, kinetics, SN1 and SN2 mechanisms, and Gravity. Guess what those are also not compleatly understood, yet they happen.

THOSE AREN'T COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD!

Of course evolution isn't completely understood because we don't know the Origin of Life. It's even worse with evolution because Darwinist don't even know the Origin of Evolution when they say evolution must have life.

This is just a belief.

Without the orgin of life, evolution is an incomplete theory because evolution depends on life for it's very existence. I don't know why Darwinist have this fantasy about a line that separates evolution from the origin of life when you say it's existence depends on life.

At least with gravity there's theories about it's origins but with evolution there's no such thing and that's because evolution is tied to the origin of life.

a reply to: neoholographic

I'm going to ask this for the god knows how many th time. I expect you'll ignore it, AGAIN.

Have you got any peer reviewed papers to back up your opinion? Or is this just a case of you thinking your opinion means anything?

a reply to: neoholographic

It's like the Dunning-Kruger effect has manifest itself in the flesh.

a reply to: GetHyped

I was just thinking the exact same thing. He certainly shows all the signs.

a reply to: neoholographic

You are being obtuse to the point of foolishness here. You are also saying things I've said, then ignoring the implications.

So lets break it down for you.
Evolution how something changes, in this case biological systems
biogenesis: How life started.

The mechanisms do not have to be related.

You are making all the assumptions you accuse us of, by saying they HAVE TO BE (empahasis you), and that is ASININE (empahsis you).

There are hypotheses (correct word) on the evolution of uh evolution. You just don't wish to acknowledge them.

originally posted by: Noinden
Now timeline.

(a) What does it matter? Evolution still happened. Pushing a time line BACK does not help disprove evolution, all it does is ask us to alter some of our ideas.

Yes evolution still happened, I'm not debating or denying that point. Nor am I on a mission to disprove evolution. So let's ditch that nonsensical argument.

Perhaps then you can share your thoughts about which of "our ideas" need altering, since there are zero implications, as you've said, on the time it took for the first microbes to evolve

originally posted by: Noinden
(b) We don't know WHEN the first living things (by our definitions) arose.

Fact.

originally posted by: Noinden
(c) As always Abiogenesis/Proteogenesis (first life) etc have no influence on the theory of evolution, and when people put the two together saying that they MUST be linked, they need to prove it beyond saying it does.

Could DNA have evolved by natural selection?

a reply to: PhotonEffect

No its not nonsensical, and I know you are not trying to disprove it. Rather why would it matter for evolutionary theory if there were more time? No seriously, what implication would there be? if nothing else it is a positive addition to the theory. More time for change to happen. This gave more time for changes to accrue.

DNA was probably not the first molecule involved, RNA most likely was, but there may have been an earlier self replication precursor. SO Why DNA? It is more stable than RNA. RNA is a unstable. Its why we need a flu jab every year (unless someone is an antivaxer, then that is a different argument, a creationist antivaxer ... now there would be a bag of problems?).Influenza mutates very fast, it is one reason why the 1919 Flu killed so many people. It mutated to something horrifically efficient, then over time (not that much) mutated to something less lethal. Similarly HIV mutates so fast, its hard to make a cure, vaccine, or treatments for it. Both are RNA viruses. The thing about influenza, is most of the mutations it undergoes, don't help it, but those which do ... well 1919 is remembered for a reason (probably 100 million or so of them, dead in the ground).

So yes in a sense the use of DNA may well be a result of natural selection, the genetic code, coded for by DNA hung around longer, and as a consequnce traits were passed on, and stayed around, but changed in less catastrophic ways.