What questions do you have about evolution?

Also for your informative reading on transitional fossils....

www.talkorigins.org...

reply to posts by woodwardjnr, halfmanhalfamazing and Leonardo01

The answers to your questions (and in Leonardo's case, the correct answer to the question he wrongly answered) are all in my first post on this thread.

*

reply to post by One Moment

did all the first mammals have belly-buttons?

Yes.

*

reply to post by Erad3

Mistakes everywhere in the last post! That's hilarious not to notice!

You are a scoundrel and shouldn't be posting misconceptions!

I call your bluff. Show me the mistakes.

Originally posted by Leonardo01
reply to post by halfmanhalfamazing

 

Are you a



the link again for your intelligent perusal..

www.talkorigins.org...





[edit on 13-7-2010 by Leonardo01]

The articles that are listed to argue irreducible complexities show basic structures such as a bridge consisting of three parts being built as proof against irreducible complexities. Can you construct a Cilium in the same manner? If so which components are you going to replace and what inconceivably complicated process to you need to follow. The probability that you have to construct such a molecular machine is one out of millions.

www.arn.org...

For me, the whole evolution thing does not have all the answers.
But, it does have some evidence in the exsistance of evolution.
Creationism, as far as I can assertain, doesn't have any evidence at all!
Therefore, untill someone can come up with a completely different theory, and back it with scientific evidence, then the only proper grown up stance has to evolution.

This link does not tell us if we came from chimps, but it does show that evolution is at work and within short time scales, and can, and is, observed.

www.bbc.co.uk...

[

*

reply to post by One Moment

did all the first mammals have belly-buttons?

Yes.

No.That is incorrect.Only placental mammals have belly buttons.

The first mammals laid eggs.Placentals and marsupials evolved much later.









[edit on 13-7-2010 by Leonardo01]

Originally posted by halfmanhalfamazing

Originally posted by Leonardo01
reply to post by halfmanhalfamazing

 

Are you a



the link again for your intelligent perusal..

www.talkorigins.org...





[edit on 13-7-2010 by Leonardo01]

The articles that are listed to argue irreducible complexities show basic structures such as a bridge consisting of three parts being built as proof against irreducible complexities. Can you construct a Cilium in the same manner? If so which components are you going to replace and what inconceivably complicated process to you need to follow. The probability that you have to construct such a molecular machine is one out of millions.

www.arn.org...

The so called theory of irreducible complexities has no scientific basis and only cites your extreme ignorance.

Check the link given below:
www.scottklarr.com...

Originally posted by Leonardo01

Originally posted by halfmanhalfamazing

Originally posted by Leonardo01
reply to post by halfmanhalfamazing

 

Are you a



the link again for your intelligent perusal..

www.talkorigins.org...





[edit on 13-7-2010 by Leonardo01]

The articles that are listed to argue irreducible complexities show basic structures such as a bridge consisting of three parts being built as proof against irreducible complexities. Can you construct a Cilium in the same manner? If so which components are you going to replace and what inconceivably complicated process to you need to follow. The probability that you have to construct such a molecular machine is one out of millions.

www.arn.org...

The so called theory of irreducible complexities has no scientific basis and only cites your extreme ignorance.

Check the link given below:
www.scottklarr.com...

Ask yourself why these components would just "miraculously" decide to start binding and building something complex and what the probabilities are of this happening?

You don't need to personally attack me you can just debate the issue.

Thanks for you response

Originally posted by halfmanhalfamazing

Originally posted by Leonardo01

Originally posted by halfmanhalfamazing

Originally posted by Leonardo01
reply to post by halfmanhalfamazing

 

Are you a



the link again for your intelligent perusal..

www.talkorigins.org...





[edit on 13-7-2010 by Leonardo01]

The articles that are listed to argue irreducible complexities show basic structures such as a bridge consisting of three parts being built as proof against irreducible complexities. Can you construct a Cilium in the same manner? If so which components are you going to replace and what inconceivably complicated process to you need to follow. The probability that you have to construct such a molecular machine is one out of millions.

www.arn.org...

The so called theory of irreducible complexities has no scientific basis and only cites your extreme ignorance.

Check the link given below:
www.scottklarr.com...

Ask yourself why these components would just "miraculously" decide to start binding and building something complex and what the probabilities are of this happening?

You don't need to personally attack me you can just debate the issue.

Thanks for you response

There is no miracle in this.Change is one of the core components of nature and also one of the key driving forces of the universe.For any organism to survive it must adapt to a changing environment.This is where the inherent complexity comes in due to the way life has evolved over the eons.

This complexity that you see today was not built overnight but it was a slow gradual process that took billions of years.It is the fundamental law of nature that an organism must either find a way to adapt to change or perish.Which is why countless species have gone extinct....the complexity that you see today is not a result of a miracle "per se" but rather a result of adaptation to change. In primordial times the atmosphere was radically different from our present atmosphere and this helped in the formation of amino acids...the basic building blocks of life.


I would request you to read up on abiogenesis in my earlier post which elucidates how life came into existence in the first place.....Also the link listed below depicts the "Miller-Urey" experiment.

en.wikipedia.org...

I will also show you how you can actually observe evolution at work:

Lets take for examples creatures that are considered to be at the apex of evolution.....our beautiful friends whom we endearingly refer to as "cockroaches". What happens when we use a bug spray on these creatures?....well most of them die. However if you have a large population then you will notice that some of them have evolved or have mutated and are either resistant to the "bug spray" in question or are completely immune (you can tell them as being different as they look a bit different from your traditional cockroach)....this is how you can perform your very own experiment on evolution in the confines of your home to observe evolution at work....mutations are merely a response to a change in the environment and while these maybe random, the ones with the most favorable mutations are more likely to survive....its all about cause and effect. In a nutshell while mutations may well be random, evolution is not.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...









[edit on 13-7-2010 by Leonardo01]

One of the pillars of the creationism argument is intelligent design.

Allow me cite an analogy which involves a lot of # and shows how the concept of intelligent design is flawed as well as why irreducible complexity is full of it.

Here Goes:

See dude for the sake of argument if we consider another alternate universe of poo, the world and everything we see was made of poo...different types and colors of poo but poo and life had evolved somehow from poo...then this sentient piece of poo would think that it was totally awesome and was the most intelligent, beautiful and sweet smelling thing in existence...and why would it think that way?...because it would have nothing to refer to that would show its wrong.

So intelligence and complexity that you cite by all means is only relative and a subjective notion highlighted by our rather limited perspective of the universe.



[edit on 13-7-2010 by Leonardo01]

reply to post by filosophia


Humans are smarter, by your definition. Because we spend so much time child rearing. I don't think there is another species that has both parents involved, teaching their offspring for 20 years. Most animal babies are lucky if they get 2.

As for families of animals, we are discovering all the time that relationships can be quite complicated. In a pack of wolves, whales, or dolphins.

Some big cats have recently learned to band together to hunt, more like a wolf pack then a lion pack.

Just because you don't know what a groundsquirrel is saying when it squeaks, doesn't mean it doesn't live in a complicated society.

There was a recent discovery that not only do elephants have a maternal pecking order, but males bond together for years, have a pecking order. The older males teach the younger males, and even keep the younger males from fighting during rut or going crazy.
Elephants have also been known to grieve the dead. And can recongize the bones of a close relative and mourn it.

How much more complicated do you want to get?

reply to post by randyvs


To paraphrase the question: "Can you name a genetic or evolutionary process that can increase the information in the genome?"

Variants of this point are common when trying to dispute evolution. The key is the word 'information'. What is information in relation to genetics? Notice the definition isn't given in the video and will almost always not be given when similar questions are asked.


But to answer the question directly (ignoring the vagueness): gene duplication is a good example. Also, it has been shown that evolutionary processes can add information to genes.
Evolution of Biological Complexity

Originally posted by Astyanax reply to posts by Johnze and nophun

 

Nice one, nophun. Yes, of course, we evolved tastebuds to help us work out what's good to eat and what isn't. But that doesn't really answer Johnze's question. Why does an orange taste good to Johnze? Because it evolved to taste that way. It didn't evolve that way with Johnze in mind, though; it had its own selfish reasons. It wanted to taste good to birds and arboreal mammals. That is what fruits exist for: to be eaten by birds and swing-through-the-trees-type beasts like Johnze's ancestors and mine. That gorgeous orange globe was 'designed' to catch the eye; that juicy, tasty pulp was 'designed' to be devoured. Why? Only so that a few hard, bitter seeds would be eaten along with the pulp, pass through the eater's gut undigested, and be excreted somewhere along with a dollop of fine organic fertilizer. Because that is how orange trees have baby orange trees.

So the orange is a masochist?....Interesting to know.




[edit on 13-7-2010 by Leonardo01]

reply to post by Leonardo01

Only placental mammals have belly buttons.

The first mammals laid eggs. Placentals and marsupials evolved much later.

The oldest fossil monotreme, Teinolophos trusleri, dates back about 125MY, that is, to the Cretaceous; the ancestors of the earliest live-bearing mammals go back to the Triassic.

Up to this time non-multituberculate allotherians had been known only from isolated teeth. Jenkins et al. (1997), however, described Haramiyavia clemmenseni from the Late Triassic of East Greenland, based on dentaries and maxillae with teeth in place, and assigned it to Haramiyida. These authors postulated predominantly orthal movements of the dentary and on this basis concluded that haramiyids were not related to multituberculates.

Another type of allotherian, Eleutherodon oxfordensis, has been described by K.A. Kermack et al. (1998) from teeth from the Middle Jurassic (Bathonian) of England. These teeth show evidence of longitudinal, presumably palinal, chewing as in Haramiyidae, but, because of their distinctive morphology, the authors proposed for this species a new suborder Eleutherodontia, order incertae sedis.

- Butler, P.M. 2000, Review of the early allotherian mammals' Acta Palaeontologica Polonica No. 45, vol. iv, 317-342.

Triconodonts, too, go back to the late Triassic and fossils continue to appear through the Jurassic and early Cretaceous.

Both these groups, therefore, predate monotremes in the fossil record. It is generally assumed that they were live-bearers, though some obviously gave birth to tiny helpless young, like modern marsupials. Or, possibly, eggs... it's hard to tell the details of a creature's reproductive system from two fossil teeth and half a jawbone. Either way, there is no firm evidence for your claim that the first mammals laid eggs.

*

reply to post by Leonardo01

So the orange is a masochist?....Interesting to know.

Is your bottom that loves being smacked a masochist, or are you? An orange is not a living being in its own right. It is the body part of a tree.

Fruits are made to be eaten. They are the only biological entities designed expressly for that purpose - part, as I explained earlier, of their dispersive function within the plant's reproductive system.

Fruits (in either sense of the word) are the means by which many plants disseminate seeds. Most edible fruits, in particular, were evolved by plants in order to exploit animals as a means for seed dispersal, and many animals (including humans to some extent) have become dependent on fruits as a source of food. Wikipedia

Overall, the majority of genera in the survey of tropical forests in Australia were fleshy fruit trees, while the majority of genera in the survey of prairies and plains in central North America were herbs with capsules and achenes. Both capsules and achenes are frequently dispersed by wind in these open and arid habitats, while fleshy fruits are generally dispersed by animals. Since desert and plains tended to provide continuous wind to aid dispersal, there may not be selective pressures for producing fleshy fruits that are developmentally more costly. However, the high abundance of fleshy fruits in the survey of Australian tropical forests may indicate a possible clue to selec- tion pressures on angiosperms for fleshy fruits due to the high proportion of available mammal and bird dispersers relative to the open habitats. Moreover, trees, shrubs, and vines that have the positional advantage to attract birds have a higher proportion of fleshy fruits than herbs. Therefore, the survey supports the hypothesis that fruit evolution was driven at least in part by dispersal agents abundant in particular habitats.

- Lorts, C.M., Briggeman, T., and Sang, T., Evolution of fruit types and seed dispersal: A phylogenetic and ecological snapshot 2008, Journal of Systematics and Evolution 46 (3): pp. 396–404

But let's not argue about these little details, or we'll confuse the poor old faithful even more

reply to post by halfmanhalfamazing

All fossils, as I stated earlier, are transitional fossils, because all species are transitional species. If you don't understand this, you don't understand evolution.

Irreducible complexity is a crock as any fool knows. You want reducible? The world is made up of quarks, leptons and bosons. Objects large enough to be seen with an electron microscope cannot possibly be irreducible; they are organized systems many layers above the fundamental. There is an infinite number of ways to build a mousetrap.

You are not here seeking knowledge, you are on this thread to peddle your creationist agenda. You can stop now; you've failed.

reply to post by avingard

You do bring up a good point. Want to know what separates us from other animals? We have developed language, and we have "special" thumbs that other species don't have. We also have highly sensitive hands, and better brains. Language is what has made us so smart. Language has strengthened our thinking. We wouldn't be able to think about this stuff if it wasn't for the words we have to think with. you can only get so far thinking the way another animal does. We are just extremely developed animals.

I do wonder what will happen to these animals we are teaching. I always wonder if dogs and cats think in our language, but cannot vocalize it because they do not have the right vocal cords.

Havn't scientists found that the genetic code has all the elements of a language?
From what I understand DNA is like a software program, only much more complex. Something
about there being a language that exists in the code? I mean a language
complete with semantics. If this is true, why hasn't it been brought up yet?

Nophun
In your video. Did I hear the guy right? First thing out of his mouth. Evolution works by modifying what's already there? Wow I thought that's
what adaptation did?

[edit on 14-7-2010 by randyvs]

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by avingard

 

Nophun
In your video. Did I hear the guy right? First thing out of his mouth. Evolution works by modifying what's already there? Wow I thought that's
what adaptation did?

Did you watch the rest of the video? Don clearly gave two examples of adding "new information".

Maybe you should be more clear about the question ?

reply to post by randyvs


In short no, DNA does not constitute a language. It is similar in that it can be viewed as a symbolic index to other 'things', but by any rigorous definition of 'language' (for example, a definition you'd find in an intro linguistics text book) DNA is not a language.

For a simple starting point, google Zipf's Law. DNA does not follow Zipf's Law.

reply to post by avingard


Ok could you look hitherto then? I've had others look at this, might as well see what you have to say.
I'm sure you can tell me, if all the facts are there and in order. Please I know what you'll want to say. I'm interested to see if you think this is totally
bogus, has a few mistakes or just something you disagree with. Maybe this is something you havn't heard before? Just look with an open mindK?
If their are mistakes, it's outdated? W/e.



[edit on 14-7-2010 by randyvs]

reply to post by randyvs


The watchmaker argument. Obviously this argument is not a good one, That said I will play along.

If everything is designed ...

Why do penguins still have #ty hollow bones that are only useful for flight ?
Why do ostriches have wings ?
Why can't humans synthesize their own vitamin C ?

I could list tons of "arguments for a #ty designer", I feel I gave enough to make my point about pally's design arguments being stupid. OH one more.

If human are so special why can't I fly, or run really fast and most importantly .. why the # do I not have laser beams growing out of my hands ?