Ask me about Evolution

[Falvlun]

How the evolutionist explain how the chicken acquired the knowledge that it needs to sit on it's eggs for fertilizing ?

where did this instinct come from and How did it develop?

Please explain in scientific means with proper sources.

These sorts of questions are like asking how a Cessna Model A can fly, and then when that is explained to you, turning around and asking how a Boeing 747 is able to do it.

First learn the laws of aerodynamics and the mechanism of flight, then you can apply that knowledge to specific examples. Doing it backwards like this is just a waste of time.

 

[Warren Clark]

Naturalism, materialism and uniformitarianism.

Generally speaking yes that is what we have found to be the core makeup of life on earth.
Naturalism, because adding anything supernatural is just unnecessary and without foundation.
Materialism, everything runs on materialism. If things did not exist as energy and matter everything would be void and non-existent. Everything consists of matter and energy. Technically speaking, everything is made of energy (matter is energy).
Uniformitarianism, actually science has skewed a bit from this. There are theories that before the big bang the laws of physics did not exist as we know and observe them today. However, everything that happened before the big bang is purely speculation.

 

[Warren Clark]

I totally agree with you.
...
...
Since I'm not a creationist, how would you find the best way to explain evolution to them, seeing as they don't understand it? I've tried a few things, but it seems like it's usually a bit too advanced for some of them...

I don't think I would be able to explain everything at once unless I wrote a book, and I feel Richard Dawkins has already written enough books to explain it perfectly. The only issue is some people won't read them without the connotation that its all wrong either way, if at all.

That is why I started this thread. I think it is simpler to have a place for people to get an answer to questions they have of things they don't understand (without misinformation being thrown around).

People bring me photos of animals looking strange and alien (sometimes dead and/or mutilated beyond recognition). People will try to claim these photos are of a dinosaur or alien, but the reality is scientists have already published the photo with the explanation that it was really another animals already known to exist.

I just allow myself to be at people's disposal to further educate themselves.

 

[Breathe]

People bring me photos of animals looking strange and alien (sometimes dead and/or mutilated beyond recognition). People will try to claim these photos are of a dinosaur or alien, but the reality is scientists have already published the photo with the explanation that it was really another animals already known to exist.

I bet you both love and hate the conspiracy theory, UFOs, cyrptozoology and so on side of Youtube then.

 

[Warren Clark]

Is evidence of common descent similarities in DNA?

DNA is made up of a variation of letters that make a DNA code.
These letters are A, C, T, and G.
These letters come in different orders with some greater and others larger than others.

What we test the similarity of is not just the DNA but the chromosome which is a length of DNA that makes you what you are.

By testing these chromosomes we can tell which DNA sequences align and which do not.
The closer the matching the closer related they are.

For example, the following is only a piece of 3 different strains of DNA.

a.) AAGG-ACCG
b.) ATCA-ACCG
c.) TCGA-GTTT

a. is more similar to b.
It is safe to assume that 'a' and 'b' are more closely related than 'c' is to either.

When looking at and comparing the DNA you get a perfect family tree or as science calls it the Taxonomy Tree.

 

[Warren Clark]

Internal similarities (including structure and DNA) in two different species prove a common ancestor. Is this true or false, or partly true?

Primarily DNA... DNA alone can tell you just how closely two species are related.

 

[dust1n]

Let me save the OP and myself some time. I think I have this evolution thingy down pat. See below:

{Observable Change} + {Imagination x Philosophy} = Darwinian Evolution

You forgot the formula for creationism!

Imagination = Creationism

 

[SkepticThinker]

If Coelacanth was an ancestor how is it still alive today?

For the same reason my grandmother is still alive even though I am also alive.

 

[Warren Clark]

I bet you both love and hate the conspiracy theory, UFOs, cyrptozoology and so on side of Youtube then.

Conspiracy Theories are fun and can be useful for getting the truth. But you get people who take them so far they get ridiculous.
Like 9/11 Truthers.

The government knew that there were threats against us.
The problem was we didn't take it seriously enough.
Then when an attack did happen, we took the threat almost too seriously, trampling on our constitution in the process and getting into war with countries that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Its far too hard to believe that the government staged 9/11 without real verifiable evidence.

 

[Warren Clark]

One of the clues of common decent is similarities in different species. Correct?

Yes. :yes:

 

[methylatedghosts]

Part of it, yes. A pretty big part. The same way you can test to see who your baby's father is, or how any two people are related, you can test to see if any two living species are related, and how, and even estimate roughly how long ago the two species branched off from one another.

And interestingly, DNA of lice. Each species of animal that gets lice has a unique species of lice. You can compare the DNA of lice on one species to that of another to estimate when that louse species branched off a closely related one. The animal species likely branched off around the same time.

2nd paragraph here: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/349361/louse/39610/Evolution-and-paleontology

 

[Ouroboros]

You forgot the formula for creationism!

Imagination = Creationism

Or:

Imagination + Not Listen to Reason + Excuses + Anti-Science = Creationism

 

[savagewind]

That common decent is shown to be true because of similarities in the structure of the DNA can it be said similarities are the sources of the evolution of species?

In other words, to prove evolution is undeniably true one just needs to look honestly at the similarities in the species. True?

 

[Falvlun]

That common decent is shown to be true because of similarities in the structure of the DNA can it be said similarities are the sources of the evolution of species?

In other words, to prove evolution is undeniably true one just needs to look honestly at the similarities in the species. True?

That is one big giant piece of the puzzle, but it's not the only one.

 

[savagewind]

That is one big giant piece of the puzzle, but it's not the only one.

"One big giant piece" to me means that without it there would be no theory of evolution. So the model of evolution involves a real life connection between every living thing. All living things are physically connected somewhere in the past.

Nothing that contains DNA is independent (or free from influenced) of the first living DNA which is called common descent. Is common descent a necessary phenomenon to believe if one believes in the model?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

"One big giant piece" to me means that without it there would be no theory of evolution. So the model of evolution involves a real life connection between every living thing. All living things are physically connected somewhere in the past.

Nothing that contains DNA is independent (or free from influenced) of the first living DNA which is called common descent. Is common descent a necessary phenomenon to believe if one believes in the model?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. But DNA is not living. It is the vehicle of life, but it is not itself living. Its why Viruses and Prions are such interesting things. They contain DNA and/or RNA (Viruses) and are made of Proteins (Prions), these are as far as we so far know the basic components of life yet these things are not alive.

Perhaps the first singled cell'd organisms come from the attempt of a Prion to Infect a Virus? Who knows.

Also how would describe Mitochondria which are found in all living cells, divide on their own and have their own DNA?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

That's right, DNA is not living. They're just extremely complex molecules. Viruses aren't living either though they are more than just molecules, if I remember correctly.

 

[savagewind]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong. But DNA is not living. It is the vehicle of life, but it is not itself living. Its why Viruses and Prions are such interesting things. They contain DNA and/or RNA (Viruses) and are made of Proteins (Prions), these are as far as we so far know the basic components of life yet these things are not alive.

Perhaps the first singled cell'd organisms come from the attempt of a Prion to Infect a Virus? Who knows.

Also how would describe Mitochondria which are found in all living cells, divide on their own and have their own DNA?

OK sorry. The functional DNA in the first living organism. I forget forum perfection sometimes.:sorry1:

 

[savagewind]

This the point I needed to be addressed. Thank you.
Nothing that contains DNA is independent (or free from influenced) of the first living DNA which is called common descent. Is common descent a necessary phenomenon to believe if one believes in the model?

 

[Agnostic75]

How the evolutionist explain how the chicken acquired the knowledge that it needs to sit on it's eggs for fertilizing?

Aliens possibly taught chickens how to do that.