Can someone explain a part of evolution to me?

a reply to: TzarChasm

If you knew what you were talking about you could defende your argument intellectually. Butden of proof is on you foo, this is 'merica lol

originally posted by: HeFrippedMeOff2
a reply to: TzarChasm

If you knew what you were talking about you could defende your argument intellectually. Butden of proof is on you foo, this is 'merica lol

nah, you just want to be entertained. find someone else.

originally posted by: HeFrippedMeOff2
a reply to: Xenogears
I perceive that we are all created from the same physical matter which does not necessitate evolution, just like our bodies dont necessarily make us "alive." I will say that if you accept evolution the you would definately, logically find your way back to primodial electrief sludge but then again, how many of us share dna with whatever primordial carbon sludge is anyways.

Look for example at the vitamin c mutation. We have all the necessary machinery for creating vitamin c, but a mutation disabled the last machine making our ancestors unable to make it, iirc. It has accumulated more mutations, but the first mutation is shared by us and other primates.

edit:

Regard similarity, if you had multiple books, finding some identical words is expected, identical paragraphs less likely, entire pages or tens of pages very very unlikely unless the books borrow from the other. When talking DNA we are referring to thousands of millions of letters, that is billions of letters.

a reply to: Xenogears

Still more physical material data. I agree we are made from same material but matter doesnt make us alive.

a reply to: HeFrippedMeOff2

And primordial sludge plus electricity cant be verified to create life.

originally posted by: HeFrippedMeOff2
a reply to: Xenogears

Still more physical material data. I agree we are made from same material but matter doesnt make us alive.

While scientists still debate whether other forms of life are possible, right now virtually all life is dna based biomachinery in a cellular structure. The cell is the fundamental unit of life.

If you show half a dozen crimes with a similar pattern, it can be indication of a serial killer. When large amounts of dna are shared between species, it indicates relatedness.

EDIT:

IT is not just material, but information. A thousand books can be written from the same exact ink, yet what is written would tend to differ, the more information they share the more likely they are to be related.

a reply to: Xenogears

The cell is the basic unit of life but is not powered by itself rather, light. Light is the life of us that energizes our cellular material.

"Related" does not necessitate evolution from a single organism of which evolution cant explain the formation.

originally posted by: HeFrippedMeOff2
a reply to: Xenogears

The cell is the basic unit of life but is not powered by itself rather, light. Light is the life of us that energizes our cellular material.

"Related" does not necessitate evolution from a single organism of which evolution cant explain the formation.

The origin of life is a whole nother thing.

Evolution only covers what the evidence suggests regards shared common ancestry, the process of natural selection. Even humans are said to experience about 40 mutations at birth. Some mutations will be detrimental, some will be neutral but a few will be beneficial. Given the evidence from astronomy and geology regards super long eons having taken place, and evidence showing Men related to bonobos and monkeys a lot, to gorillas even less so, and to mice even less so, but even having similarity to strawberries and bananas, you have to look at the evidence.

Again you don't expect to get 90~% similarity by accident, that basically implies either evolution or a deceiver creator who wants those looking at the data to arrive at such conclusion. When A bonobo, a monkey a gorilla, a mouse and a human have substantial percent of similar DNA, claiming this doesn't show relatedness, is like handing a copy of paper to a professor with entire paragraphs exactly identical to that of another student, claiming there's no plagiarism is going to be hard.

Why can't creation and evolution co-exist?

a reply to: deadlyhope

In short, No, there have been no scientific or fossil evidence of evolution, which is a scientific theory, not fact, that is taught as if it were scientific fact. Yes, the theory has some really good and important information, but its still just a theory.
There have been scientific studies were scientists have taken the fruit fly and try to make it evolve but exposing it to different forces. Yes, they were able to make the fruit fly mutate and adapt to its environment in multiple ways, but not once did they ever get the fruit fly to change into anything other than a fruit fly. Interesting study that I'm sure you can google.

I think its very interesting that we still do not know the full effects that the mass extinctions have had upon evolution. according to a few sources ive read on the topic it seems that all the mammals of today evolved over the past 66 million years after the dinosuars were wiped out. also it seems that evolution was accelerated after the extinction. I want to see the fossil record we have pertaining to this period of time. I feel this would help to show a clear picture.

Also in reference to your friend being religious on the subject. I would try to persuade him that our current human existance began about 6000 years ago. We have arcaeological, historical(including the bible), and much other evidence to support this. believe this is when the Elohim interfered and changed our course making man what we are today. This was when the Earth was coming out of an ice age and after the flood that destroyed much. In that we lost a lot of history. Bring up the order of Melchizedek and that moses was indoctrinated by a priest of that order. Also i believe jesus has connections there as well. Try to get him to look at the bible fresh and come to his own answers. the truth lies within but many have construed it to their own means. Show him the history of our modern bible. the version we have today is not what many early christians believed and up until the 1500's or so until the was a certified canon that excluded many religious texts, some from the apostles even. I Believe that evolution is one of the tools that The Universe or God uses to create life. I also believe that something else calling itself god (Yaweh/fallen angels) came to us and messed with that plan. I believe we need to use both religion and science to find the truth.

originally posted by: arcnaver
a reply to: deadlyhope

In short, No, there have been no scientific or fossil evidence of evolution, which is a scientific theory, not fact, that is taught as if it were scientific fact. Yes, the theory has some really good and important information, but its still just a theory.
There have been scientific studies were scientists have taken the fruit fly and try to make it evolve but exposing it to different forces. Yes, they were able to make the fruit fly mutate and adapt to its environment in multiple ways, but not once did they ever get the fruit fly to change into anything other than a fruit fly. Interesting study that I'm sure you can google.

Look at dogs, their great variety. They share a common ancestor with wolves. If some subgroups don't interbreed for long enough, the accumulation of mutation will make them unable to interbreed. Should such happen you could eventually hear some claim a great dane and a chihuahua, say were always different species and ignore the fact they are a product of artificial selection.

As for evolution. Again, given that astronomists say the universe is billions of years old and contains countless 100s of billions of planets, many like earth. All of that suggests that life is a phenomena that can occur in some worlds, it is unlikely that a single planet is special and central to the universe as viewed by mainstream science. You'd basically have to cast away a lot of mainstream science, if you're going that way, but that would involve massive conspiracy, as a lot of the data is self reinforcing.

originally posted by: HeFrippedMeOff2
a reply to: deadlyhope
1) Modern scientists call Evolution a "theory" and still do so bc there is no verifiable proof of evolution

You're confusing the common use of the word "Theory" with the term "Scientific Theory". They are not interchangeable terminology.

Common use of the word theory according to dictionary.com: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Scientific Theory, also according to dictionary.com: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena:

A deeper explanation of the term 'Scientific Theory' by University of California, Berkeley: Occasionally, scientific ideas (such as biological evolution) are written off with the putdown "it's just a theory." This slur is misleading and conflates two separate meanings of the word theory: in common usage, the word theory means just a hunch, but in science, a theory is a powerful explanation for a broad set of observations. To be accepted by the scientific community, a theory (in the scientific sense of the word) must be strongly supported by many different lines of evidence. So biological evolution is a theory (it is a well-supported, widely accepted, and powerful explanation for the diversity of life on Earth), but it is not "just" a theory.

Words with both technical and everyday meanings often cause confusion. Even scientists sometimes use the word theory when they really mean hypothesis or even just a hunch. Many technical fields have similar vocabulary problems — for example, both the terms work in physics and ego in psychology have specific meanings in their technical fields that differ from their common uses. However, context and a little background knowledge are usually sufficient to figure out which meaning is intended.


, only adaption such as chickens being the closest DNA relative to the T-rex.

originally posted by: HeFrippedMeOff2
a reply to: deadlyhope
Nobody knows the Earth's age. Radioactive Carbon dating is flawed according to actual scientific blind studies

Radiocarbon dating isn't used to determine the age of the earth. Heck, it's not able to determine the age of any rocks. It dates carbon, hence the name 'radiocarbon dating'. Carbon is found in biological matter and the use of radiocarbon dating can only be reliably measured by this process to around 50,000 years - far short of the earth's age (4.543b Years).

We use other methods to determine how old the Earth is:



Potassium–argon dating is commonly used to date rocks.

originally posted by: HeFrippedMeOff2
a reply to: MarsIsRed
It would be an affront to my college education to believe in the mountain of evidence or lack thereof for evolution. How bout you give the ATS one big ol fat verifiable, qauntifiable piece of evidence for evolution that is completely devoid of emotional bias since you claim it to be so, troll.

Alright.

To simply define Evolution, we would describe it as being a mechanism that allows for modifications of populations by natural selection, where some traits were favored in and environment over others.

We can see, in all species, that there is a mutation rate. This, essentially, is how many mutations occur over time. It is direct proof that over a single generation, to multiple generations, something new is added or taken away from a populations DNA code.

Using various methods, we can actually determine the mutation rate for different species:

The genomic era has ushered in the ability to read out mutation rates directly. It replaced older methods of inference that were based on indirect evolutionary comparisons or studies of mutations that are visually remarkable such as those resulting in color changes of an organism or changes in pathogenic outcomes. A landmark effort at chasing down mutations in bacteria is a long-term experiment in evolution that has been running for more than two decades in the group of Richard Lenski. In this case it is possible to query the genome directly through sequencing at different time points in the evolutionary process and to examine both where these mutations occur as shown in Figure 1 as well as how they accumulate with time as shown in Figure 2. Sequencing of 19 whole genomes detected 25 synonymous mutation (indicating neutral rather than selective changes) that got fixed in the 40,000 generations of the experiment. This measurement enabled the inference that the mutation rate is about 10-10 mutations per bp per replication in the measured conditions (link)

If you'd like to read the Peer-reviewed scientific article on the example above, you can do so here

In humans, a mutation rate of about 10-8 mutations/bp/generation. if you'd like to view the Peer-reviewed scientific article on that, you can do so here

So as you can see, we have change over time from variation through reproduction. The very foundation of Evolution.

originally posted by: HeFrippedMeOff2
a reply to: HeFrippedMeOff2

And primordial sludge plus electricity cant be verified to create life.

This isn't what Evolution describes. You're entering the realm of Abiogenesis, a completely different subject. Evolution only occurs once life already exists.

originally posted by: HeFrippedMeOff2
a reply to: TzarChasm

More trolls who'd rather blaspheme than provide something substantial to the conversation.

Is that so?

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Ghost147
a reply to: Snarl

I don't understand. You believe mutations occur, you believe speciation occurs (at least once some catastrophic event occurs), what drives mutations and speciation from your perspective?

Mutations are changes which occur 'inside' of a species. They're usually noticeable only to a 'trained observer' and they occur over definitively measurable periods of time.

Right you are

Now, why would the accumulation of mutations not eventually lead to that population diverging from another that didn't accumulate those same mutations?

originally posted by: Snarl
A speciation event is something altogether different. We're talking the rise of cats and dogs ... whales and fish ... eagles and elephants. We're not talking about the differences between Polar Bears and Grizzlies.

But... Polar bears and grizzlies are different species.... Why would we not reference them in speciation?

The same form of divergence occurred when the ancestors of cats and dogs diverged from the order Carnivora, creating the families Canidae and Felidae. The only difference is that you're looking at a larger time frame.

As for 'Whales and Fish', Whales are more closely related to dogs and cats than they are fish. Likewise, however, we can trace their lineage.

originally posted by: Snarl
You want change on this scale ... you change the entire playing field.

You're absolutely correct. of course, it can occur without a massive change to the environment, however, when a drastic change occurs to the environment, we see increases in mutation rates, and depending on the scale that change occurs to the size of the environment does indeed increase the rate of speciation due to the increase of mutation rates.

Again, i'll have to ask, what is the actual mechanism that you believe causes speciation?

So far, from what I've read, you believe mutations occur, and you believe speciation occurs, but for some reason you don't find that those two have a relationship at all. Could you elaborate further?

originally posted by: Ghost147
But... Polar bears and grizzlies are different species.... Why would we not reference them in speciation?

That's all good. But a bear is still a bear.

You wanna see 40 or 50 pairs of bears give birth to ... oh, I don't know ... Sasquatch? That's 'evolution'. It's not mutation. It's not speciation. It's a new distinct life form.

It's the problem with the age-old Evolutionary Argument people aren't putting their fingers on.

It doesn't take a great deal of time for this to occur. It happens very quickly. It's how complex life persists ... without a giant re-set. The trick is: Evolutionary events aren't something you routinely encounter on a time-scale. Mutation - yes ... Speciation - maybe ... but Evolution follows major catastrophe/Earth Shattering Calamity. Always has ... always will.

We're almost out of the Dark Ages. There's still hope for Science.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Ghost147
But... Polar bears and grizzlies are different species.... Why would we not reference them in speciation?

That's all good. But a bear is still a bear.

No... a bear is not just a bear. A bear is from a genus, specifically the Ursus genus, but it's quite apparent that Grizzly's, Polar's, Panda's, and Blackbears are not all the exact same thing. If they were, we would expect to see a panda bear giving birth to a polar bear.

They are in fact separate species.

originally posted by: Snarl
You wanna see 40 or 50 pairs of bears give birth to ... oh, I don't know ... Sasquatch? That's 'evolution'.

Not according to the Theory of Evolution it's not. There is nothing in biological evolution that states "one species will give birth to an entirely different genus, and thus it was called, 'evolution' ".

But! I'm more than willing to read through a scientific article that supports your view, if you'd care to post one?

originally posted by: Snarl
It's not mutation. It's not speciation. It's a new distinct life form.

A species giving birth to an entirely different genus would actually disprove the theory of evolution.

Out of curiosity, how do you determine when a 'life form' is different from another 'life form'. Usually we use what's called Taxonomy, but you seem to be using a different form of classification.

originally posted by: Snarl
It's the problem with the age-old Evolutionary Argument people aren't putting their fingers on.

Is it? Because so far you haven't actually expressed what Evolutionary biology actually states. It appears as though what you believe to be the definition of Evolution, is not accurate.

originally posted by: Snarl
It doesn't take a great deal of time for this to occur. It happens very quickly. It's how complex life persists

Do you have evidence that supports this?

originally posted by: SnarlEvolutionary events aren't something you routinely encounter on a time-scale. Mutation - yes ... Speciation - maybe ...

Mutations and speciation is, at it's simplest form all there is to evolution...

originally posted by: Ghost147
Mutations and speciation is, at it's simplest form all there is to evolution...

LOL

I can explain if you'd wish? But first I'd like you to address the rest of that post if you wouldn't mind

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Ghost147
But... Polar bears and grizzlies are different species.... Why would we not reference them in speciation?

That's all good. But a bear is still a bear.

You wanna see 40 or 50 pairs of bears give birth to ... oh, I don't know ... Sasquatch? That's 'evolution'. It's not mutation. It's not speciation. It's a new distinct life form.

It's the problem with the age-old Evolutionary Argument people aren't putting their fingers on.

It doesn't take a great deal of time for this to occur. It happens very quickly. It's how complex life persists ... without a giant re-set. The trick is: Evolutionary events aren't something you routinely encounter on a time-scale. Mutation - yes ... Speciation - maybe ... but Evolution follows major catastrophe/Earth Shattering Calamity. Always has ... always will.

We're almost out of the Dark Ages. There's still hope for Science.

There are limits to what is easily evolvable from a particular state. A reason I suspect why going from land to sea, didn't seem to reintroduce gills in whales or dolphins, it was easier to retain lungs.

Likewise the nature of insects' exoskeletons probably limits the maximum size they can ever attain, unless they develop some reinforcement material or an endoskeleton they are stuck with that limitation.

Some lifeforms are said to have not changed for millions, tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of years, iirc.

Some strange things happen as a result of evolutionary processes, one of which is dependence. Look at the countless vitamins we need take in to survive. Things like vitamin C are needed because it was abundant in our ancestors diet, and the mutation that disabled its production did not have much effect. Other designs like lungs on dolphins or the laryngeal nerve of giraffes show questionable design choices, were it not the product of evolution.

The essence is random mutation, so it's unlikely you can take a tiger and turn it into something that looks and functions exactly like say an eagle, but probably into something quite similar. Look at dogs, look at corn, look at whales and dolphins, those are examples of vast drastic changes that have been noted some by our own hands through artificial selection