Ask me about Evolution

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Yes and the created thing follows a process (life) that already existed.
The discovery of many things happened more than once in different places. It can be likened to a selected mutation (in which the possibility of the mutation being caused already existed). The similarities in discoveries are not linked says history. The similarities between species are linked, says you.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say.


Do all living organisms have DNA/RNA? Yes? Do they have Mitochondria yes? Those are pretty important similarities on a cellular level. So that's a link.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Viruses are biological living creatures and meet all the criteria of a living organism. DNA is what makes a living organism. A virus has DNA. Which is what they manipulate to make vaccines.

Hardly. They have no activity; not until they have a host anyway. Otherwise, they are organic inanimate objects.

It's like saying a dead body is a living organism because it has DNA. No it's not. There's no activity.

A dead body meets as much "criteria" as a virus and then some. To argue that viruses are living things is to argue that they're "more" alive than the dead.

 

[savagewind]

I'm really not sure what you're trying to say.


Do all living organisms have DNA/RNA? Yes? Do they have Mitochondria yes? Those are pretty important similarities on a cellular level. So that's a link.

But creation accounts for DNA too you know. We who believe in creation do not think DNA does not exist.

My point in mentioning multiple discoveries is to prove similarities do not always prove a link.

 

[Warren Clark]

Well, no, but it sure is funny. A boats leads to a trip of discovery. Very good!

What I mean is similarities in species might be coincidence just like the discoveries in science are. But you say NO! The similarities in species prove they are linked. The similarities in the scientific mind does not prove the minds are linked, do they?

Its not just that they are similar.
Its that the specific species match a particular way that when you cross match the DNA it makes a perfect family tree.

The DNA is only made up of 4 different letters. If that was the only similarity then it would be quite the coincidence. But its the fact that you can literally trace a family tree by cross matching DNA.

For instance we share
50% DNA with a Banana
60% DNA with a Fruit Fly
70% DNA with a Sea Sponge
98% DNA with a Chimp
99% DNA with every Human
99.5% DNA between parent and child
100% DNA with an identical twin.

Note:
A human DNA sequence, if it were a half an inch of a twine, would
stretch from New York to the the west coast of California. That makes
that 50% seem all the more distant when you think of the whole
number/complexity that the percent refers to.

We are related to everything by some degree and it would be perverse to deny the evidence. The similarities are too great for coincidence.

 

[savagewind]

Its not just that they are similar.
Its that the specific species match a particular way that when you cross match the DNA it makes a perfect family tree.

The DNA is only made up of 4 different letters. If that was the only similarity then it would be quite the coincidence. But its the fact that you can literally trace a family tree by cross matching DNA.

For instance we share
50% DNA with a Banana
60% DNA with a Fruit Fly
70% DNA with a Sea Sponge
98% DNA with a Chimp
99% DNA with every Human.
100% DNA with an identical twin.

Note:
A human DNA sequence, if it were a half an inch of a twine, would
stretch from New York to the the west coast of California. That makes
that 50% seem all the more distant when you think of the whole
number/complexity that the percent refers to.

We are related to everything by some degree and it would be perverse to deny the evidence. The similarities are too great for coincidence.

Yes. But it also seems true that intellectual discovers share close to 100% similarities. Similarities in intellectual discoveries do not prove a relationship.

 

[savagewind]

Call me perverse again and I'll call you perverse for not seeing something that denies your claim "similarities prove relationship". How about that?

By the way, the similarities (all of them except the criticism) can be attributed to all life having one designer. I do believe there is just one.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Call me perverse again and I'll call you perverse for not seeing something that denies your claim "similarities prove relationship". How about that?

By the way, the similarities (all of them except the criticism) can be attributed to all life having one designer. I do believe there is just one.

That is fine and others say many.

But the link you're trying to make between discoveries and common descent just doesn't mesh...I'm not intelligent enough to explain how but I can just tell something is off. It's like you're comparing apples to oranges as the idiom goes.

 

[savagewind]

That is fine and others say many.

But the link you're trying to make between discoveries and common descent just doesn't mesh...I'm not intelligent enough to explain how but I can just tell something is off. It's like you're comparing apples to oranges as the idiom goes.

Something is off? You are right! Sometimes the thing that is off is called cognitive dissonance.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Call me perverse again and I'll call you perverse for not seeing something that denies your claim "similarities prove relationship". How about that?

By the way, the similarities (all of them except the criticism) can be attributed to all life having one designer. I do believe there is just one.

The thing is, the concept of a creator isn't needed to account for the similarities among creatures.

And while a coincidence is technically possible, anyone who argues it doesn't understand just how outrageous of a coincidence it would have to be in order for evolution to not be true.

There would have to be vasts amounts of species, all utterly unrelated to each other, coming in and out of existence just for other species to appear after them, that just HAPPENED to be a little different from the previous, only to die off and have more pop into existence that's just a little different than the last again. All this happening by chance.

It's like saying if a person doesn't have pictures of himself from every age -- say age 5, 8 and 12 -- then one could argue that all the available pictures actually consist of 3 different people.

One living to age 5, then dying off. Then another person that looks almost identical, but is a little bigger, comes into existence by chance. Then dies off at age 8. Then another comes into existance and.... well you see where I'm going with this. Just imagine this, but a much MUCH larger timescale with more total "snap shots" and more holes AND not one, but hundreds of MILLIONS of different sets of people(or species), just to show how utterly stupendous of a coincidence it would have to be. A coincidence that technically isn't disproven, but extremely unlikely.

Which brings me to a final point. In physical science, there's no two sided coin of "fact" and "false", but rather a spectrum ranging from "most probable" to "least probable". This is what most religions don't understand, is that there's no absolute certainty in the physical world even though they want to claim it. You only get that in pure mathematics as mathematical facts don't require the senses to be realized.

 

[Warren Clark]

Yes. But it also seems true that intellectual discovers share close to 100% similarities. Similarities in intellectual discoveries do not prove a relationship.

There isn't enough intellectual discoveries that are similar to even consider the two being connected in anyway.

 

[Warren Clark]

Something is off? You are right! Sometimes the thing that is off is called cognitive dissonance.

What he is saying is you are comparing apples and oranges.
There is no similarity between similar intellectual discoveries and common descent. There is no comparison.

There are no similarities.

 

[Falvlun]

Call me perverse again and I'll call you perverse for not seeing something that denies your claim "similarities prove relationship". How about that?

By the way, the similarities (all of them except the criticism) can be attributed to all life having one designer. I do believe there is just one.

If you are questioning whether similarities in genetic code indicate ancestral relationship or not, then you are outside the realm of criticizing just evolution. You are questioning sexual reproduction itself, and how it works.

 

[Curious George]

I think the biggest reason that people don't "believe in" evolution is because they don't understand it. I would like to state that although evolution is only a theory, a theory holds a lot of value in the scientific community due to it being scrupulously tested.
It holds just as much merit as gravity.
So if you want to "debate" evolution with me, I am open to it.
In this manner I will present facts (NOT OPINIONS) with sources by credited sources or sources with credited sources. Youtube may be considered a proper source so long as the source is listed within the video.
A pastor or evangelical creationist that went to Bible college talking about evolution does not qualify as a source.
A professor from a credited university in the area of science is acceptable, or say a National Geographic video with sources from a credited source is acceptable as well.

The bible is not a credited source.

Abiogenesis and the Big Bang are two separate theories not to be confused with Darwin's Origin of the Species aka evolution.

My goal in doing this is only to further educate those who may be missing a fundamental understanding of basic biology.

I am curious if you could list different processes of evolution which are not guided by natural selection. I would like to know how important natural selection is in the overall scheme of evolution especially in dealing with speciation.

Lastly, I would like to hear where there are gaps in evolutionary theory and what additional evolutionary theories and mechanisms have been suggested and how these supplemental concepts account for the problems.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I am curious if you could list different processes of evolution which are not guided by natural selection. I would like to know how important natural selection is in the overall scheme of evolution especially in dealing with speciation.

Lastly, I would like to hear where there are gaps in evolutionary theory and what additional evolutionary theories and mechanisms have been suggested and how these supplemental concepts account for the problems.

From what I understand, there aren't really gaps in the theory it self, there's just gaps in the fossil record. The theory it self is very solid and is backed by a lot more than just fossils.

 

[Curious George]

From what I understand, there aren't really gaps in the theory it self, there's just gaps in the fossil record. The theory it self is very solid and is backed by a lot more than just fossils.

There are no gaps in our understanding of evolution?

 

[Warren Clark]

I am curious if you could list different processes of evolution which are not guided by natural selection. I would like to know how important natural selection is in the overall scheme of evolution especially in dealing with speciation.

Lastly, I would like to hear where there are gaps in evolutionary theory and what additional evolutionary theories and mechanisms have been suggested and how these supplemental concepts account for the problems.

1. There are no known gaps in evolution at this moment.
2. Speciation is caused by genetic mutations. If the species lives on to reproduce the mutated gene has a better chance of being passed on. enough offspring with this gene will cause a diverge into another species. Natural selection plays if this mutation harms or benefits the species. Such as a cheetah giving birth to cubs with stripes rather than spots.
How the cheetah got its stripes: A genetic tale by Stanford researchers - Office of Communications & Public Affairs - Stanford University School of Medicine

Either way Natural Selection carries out the deed.

 

[Curious George]

1. There are no known gaps in evolution at this moment.
2. Speciation is caused by genetic mutations. If the species lives on to reproduce the mutated gene has a better chance of being passed on. enough offspring with this gene will cause a diverge into another species. Natural selection plays if this mutation harms or benefits the species. Such as a cheetah giving birth to cubs with stripes rather than spots.
How the cheetah got its stripes: A genetic tale by Stanford researchers - Office of Communications & Public Affairs - Stanford University School of Medicine

Either way Natural Selection carries out the deed.

So, if natural selection is the driving force behind it all does that mean that it is the driving force behind accumulated neutral mutations, symbiogenesis, horizontal gene transfer, etc?

And if mutation is solely responsible for speciation, how do we account for stabilized hybrids?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

There are no gaps in our understanding of evolution?

Nope. There isn't any major unsolved problems or any physical evidence that Evolution runs into that greatly shakes up it's foundation.

Not that I can think of anyway.

So, if natural selection is the driving force behind it all does that mean that it is the driving force behind accumulated neutral mutations, symbiogenesis, horizontal gene transfer, etc?

And if mutation is solely responsible for speciation, how do we account for stabilized hybrids?

Natural Selection doesn't cause any mutations themselves. Mutations happen randomly, and whatever mutation is most advantages for a given environment has a higher probability of surviving, and vice versa. This is what's not random. Note the word 'selection'. The environment is, in a sense, selecting which random(and already present) mutations should live on and which should not. The mutations themselves are not determined by Natural Selection though.

Mutations are random. Which mutations(thus, traits) live on and which don't is not random.

 

[Curious George]

Nope. There isn't any major unsolved problems or any physical evidence that Evolution runs into that greatly shakes up it's foundation.

Not that I can think of anyway.



Natural Selection doesn't cause any mutations themselves. Mutations happen randomly, and whatever mutation is most advantages for a given environment, has a higher probability of surviving, and vice versa. This is what's not random. Note the word 'selection'. The environment is, in a sense, selecting which random(and already present) mutations should live on and which should not. The mutations themselves are not determined by Natural Selection though.

Mutations are random. Which mutations(thus, traits) live on and which don't is not random.

The problem with this basic description misses the point. Let us take accumulated neutral mutations for instance. If these are neutral then by definition they are not naturally selected. The controlling factor here then is genetic drift and not natural selection. Now accumulated neutral mutations can have a net benefit especially in the event of a major world change. Yet, this concept is not in line with natural selection since the distribution is not controlled by natural selection but rather primarily by genetic drift. Horizontal gene transfer again is not controlled by natural selection, rather horizontal gene transfer can benefit one group simply by random chance. Again we see a deviation from natural selection. This does not mean that natural selection is not a driving force, it just means that natural selection is not the only factor.

 

[Curious George]

Nope. There isn't any major unsolved problems or any physical evidence that Evolution runs into that greatly shakes up it's foundation.

Not that I can think of anyway.



Natural Selection doesn't cause any mutations themselves. Mutations happen randomly, and whatever mutation is most advantages for a given environment has a higher probability of surviving, and vice versa. This is what's not random. Note the word 'selection'. The environment is, in a sense, selecting which random(and already present) mutations should live on and which should not. The mutations themselves are not determined by Natural Selection though.

Mutations are random. Which mutations(thus, traits) live on and which don't is not random.

Symbiogenesis

For your reading pleasure. Symbiogenesis is also an example of change which is very different from the slow process of genetic mutation through natural selection.