Crosswords13 mins ago
Darwinism Finches And The Pepper Moth
87 Answers
Darwinism finches beaks and the Pepper moth are given as just two examples of evolution.
No, they changed minutely by natural selection to maximise their environment, and if they couldn't they would die out. But they remain moths and finches, the same KIND as the Bible says.
Animal species become extinct all the time because they CANNOT evolve to integrate with their new environment.
Is there just one example of one species changing into another?
Apart from me after a few pints.
No, they changed minutely by natural selection to maximise their environment, and if they couldn't they would die out. But they remain moths and finches, the same KIND as the Bible says.
Animal species become extinct all the time because they CANNOT evolve to integrate with their new environment.
Is there just one example of one species changing into another?
Apart from me after a few pints.
Answers
A few weeks ago, evolutionist
16:31 Sun 20th Sep 2015
You can not reasonably expect to see this occuring in the major animals today. You get new species because an existing one splits into two with no ability to contact nor breed for many generations until they have evolved so differently they could no longer mate. Asking for an example is asking too much. Once small changes due to evolution have been accepted then splitting into different species is exactly the same thing "written large" and one cannot reasonably deny it any longer.
@Theland
//At least listen to the scientists on YouTube and consider the evidence. //
Real scientists don't "publish" their works on YouTube. They publish in writing, to peer-reviewed journals and you are free to read them in any University-quality library. Those whose work is deemed to be "fringe", by these journals always have an outlet on YouTube, where they can pour forth for as many hours as their viewership can stand.
If Dawkins and SJ Gould videos are up they've probably been posted by fans, to counter the fringe stuff.
//No additional information is added to gene mutation,//
How many ribs do snakes have, in comparison to lizards?
Millipedes have many virtually identical body segments, each with its own set of legs.
Whole sections of DNA can be accidentally duplicated and reinserted; multiple times in the above examples.
In Downs syndrome, there is a whole extra chromosome.
So there is more to it than just point mutations.
// in fact, information is lost. //
Segments of DNA can get deleted, if that is what you mean? Otherwise a letter change generally leads to an amino acid substitution in the gene product, which may or may not be consequential. Cases where the mutation turns the triplet into a STOP/START codon are not entirely unfeasible but would result in an incomplete gene product (premature stop) or a spurious secondary gene product (extra start point) which could prove to be either harmful (resource waste or even toxicity) or a useful novelty, depending on the detail.
//At least listen to the scientists on YouTube and consider the evidence. //
Real scientists don't "publish" their works on YouTube. They publish in writing, to peer-reviewed journals and you are free to read them in any University-quality library. Those whose work is deemed to be "fringe", by these journals always have an outlet on YouTube, where they can pour forth for as many hours as their viewership can stand.
If Dawkins and SJ Gould videos are up they've probably been posted by fans, to counter the fringe stuff.
//No additional information is added to gene mutation,//
How many ribs do snakes have, in comparison to lizards?
Millipedes have many virtually identical body segments, each with its own set of legs.
Whole sections of DNA can be accidentally duplicated and reinserted; multiple times in the above examples.
In Downs syndrome, there is a whole extra chromosome.
So there is more to it than just point mutations.
// in fact, information is lost. //
Segments of DNA can get deleted, if that is what you mean? Otherwise a letter change generally leads to an amino acid substitution in the gene product, which may or may not be consequential. Cases where the mutation turns the triplet into a STOP/START codon are not entirely unfeasible but would result in an incomplete gene product (premature stop) or a spurious secondary gene product (extra start point) which could prove to be either harmful (resource waste or even toxicity) or a useful novelty, depending on the detail.
Got anything to say that I've not already seen on alt.talk.origins 25 years ago?
Because there is nothing I've seen believers try on AB, in an effort to pooh-pooh science that I haven't seen them try on the usenet groups of yesteryear. I sometimes wonder if there's not a lot of "try this on 'em" and cut'n'paste going on because I'm getting deja vu on a daily basis, here.
Just some fresh, original thinking is what I need to restore my faith in humanity.
Because there is nothing I've seen believers try on AB, in an effort to pooh-pooh science that I haven't seen them try on the usenet groups of yesteryear. I sometimes wonder if there's not a lot of "try this on 'em" and cut'n'paste going on because I'm getting deja vu on a daily basis, here.
Just some fresh, original thinking is what I need to restore my faith in humanity.
Stephen C Meyer. Oh yes, the bloke who has received the following criticism from his 'peers':
26 scientists, representing 34 of the papers, responded. None of the authors considered that their research provided evidence against evolution
Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses; yet they complain about an imagined exclusion, even after having flunked the basics.
problems with Meyer's work by citing how RNA"survived and evolved into our own human protein-making factory, and continues to make our fingers and toes."
Meyer's lack of scientific knowledge and superficial understanding in the relevant fields, especially molecular phylogenetics and morphogenesis. The main argument of Meyer is the mathematically impossible time scale that is needed to support emergence of new genes
26 scientists, representing 34 of the papers, responded. None of the authors considered that their research provided evidence against evolution
Intelligent design advocates ... have no research and no evidence, and have repeatedly shown themselves unwilling to formulate testable hypotheses; yet they complain about an imagined exclusion, even after having flunked the basics.
problems with Meyer's work by citing how RNA"survived and evolved into our own human protein-making factory, and continues to make our fingers and toes."
Meyer's lack of scientific knowledge and superficial understanding in the relevant fields, especially molecular phylogenetics and morphogenesis. The main argument of Meyer is the mathematically impossible time scale that is needed to support emergence of new genes
And still waiting to hear from Theland for his explanation on how the different races of humans came about!
I love the refusal of excepting the dinosaurs to birds evidence. Never heard of archaeopteryx ? There are now other transitional species that undoubtedly prove that birds evolved from one branch of dinosaurs.
There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.
I love the refusal of excepting the dinosaurs to birds evidence. Never heard of archaeopteryx ? There are now other transitional species that undoubtedly prove that birds evolved from one branch of dinosaurs.
There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see.
It's difficult to take seriously an argument against some grand scientific theory that concludes with such a poor and completely irrelevant joke. Also the "same KIND as the Bible says" doesn't really work as a counter-argument either. The Bible is not known for its rigour in scientific definition -- the rather loose definition of "bird" or "fowl", depending on translation, extending to include the bat being the most obvious example (Lev. 11:19). Even if you allow for the translation being probably loose, it's evident that you cannot turn to the Bible expecting to find scientific rigour. That's not really its point anyway, or shouldn't be.
The remainder is just a case of where you put the transition point. Once you accept that natural selection + random genetic mutations drives a species to change its appearance and certain other features on fairly short timescales, it follows naturally, that, given enough time, at least the potential is there for the creature to change markedly from how it started out. The key problem with this is that the timescales involved are far beyond the experience of man to observe properly; the fossil record can provide useful clues, as well as leave annoying gaps. How you interpret that record probably depends a great deal on what you were looking for in the first place, so that, say, a gap plugged according to one side of the argument is a new gap created from the other point of view.
I expect the debate will rage on and on. But even if the evidence for evolution remains inconclusive (and I don't agree that it does, but let's allow that it might not be perfect for some) then that doesn't justify Intelligent Design or any competing theory in and off itself. It's up to the opponents to justify their competing views as well. Which, Theland, you seem incapable of doing without resorting instantly to rather petty personal retorts that do neither yourself nor those who'd agree with you any favours. Better effort next time, please.
The remainder is just a case of where you put the transition point. Once you accept that natural selection + random genetic mutations drives a species to change its appearance and certain other features on fairly short timescales, it follows naturally, that, given enough time, at least the potential is there for the creature to change markedly from how it started out. The key problem with this is that the timescales involved are far beyond the experience of man to observe properly; the fossil record can provide useful clues, as well as leave annoying gaps. How you interpret that record probably depends a great deal on what you were looking for in the first place, so that, say, a gap plugged according to one side of the argument is a new gap created from the other point of view.
I expect the debate will rage on and on. But even if the evidence for evolution remains inconclusive (and I don't agree that it does, but let's allow that it might not be perfect for some) then that doesn't justify Intelligent Design or any competing theory in and off itself. It's up to the opponents to justify their competing views as well. Which, Theland, you seem incapable of doing without resorting instantly to rather petty personal retorts that do neither yourself nor those who'd agree with you any favours. Better effort next time, please.
There is one huge example of recent ( and frequent) evolution, staring us in the face, which I have raised before, and which theland has neither rejected not refuted. It is the appearance of new viruses. New influenza viruses evolve every year. That's why scientists have to develop new vaccines every year. Bird influenza is a new phenomenon which did not exist ( certainly not in anything like its present lethal form) half a century ago. Bird viruses are mutating at a terrifying rate, and may one day wipe out all poultry. How is that not an example of evolution ? Come on, theland, answer my statement this time.
Theland, you should try to understand that the concept of 'species' is man made. It is a convenient way of sorting organisms into groups that have many characteristics in common. Some different species interbreed quite easily, others don't. Sometimes zoologists realize that what were thought to be different species are the same and vice versa. Evolution is just a drift of genes in a group that gradually becomes so different from its origin that it appears noticeably different. There isn't a magical 'Darwin moment' when a new species appears This is reality, not religion..
// This study does not give evidence for macro-evolution, and does not prove that natural selection and random mutation could produce the living world as we know it from simple single-celled ancestors. //
where does Srephen J Gould say that please ?
It really does if he said that look as tho I have misunderstood him
[ I would agree that Gould thought his theories were so dramatically original that they should be labelled Gould's theories - others didnt ]
or is it a ID gloss slipped in by a certain Clanad ?
where does Srephen J Gould say that please ?
It really does if he said that look as tho I have misunderstood him
[ I would agree that Gould thought his theories were so dramatically original that they should be labelled Gould's theories - others didnt ]
or is it a ID gloss slipped in by a certain Clanad ?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.