Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

[Autodidact]

I'm only going to address the first question because it's so important, and I dont' know why this comes up so often.

Abiogenesis (That being the beginning of life) is not covered by the Theory of Evolution. I recommend reading the Wikipedia article here

Origin of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


for a quick overview of abiogenesis, there are attempts at uncovering it, but it is completely seperate.

Evolution explains the diversity and complexity of life, not the fact that life exists.

Do you get tired of saying the same thing over and over again? I certainly do.

 

[Autodidact]

OK i said this to autodidact but she said that theorys were fact which i obviously disagreed with,the evidence is there for evolution but there are so many unopened envelopes that it is'nt fact which has been my point al along.
I am not religious and so i'm not bothered whether we come from the phlegm of a passing alien or a chemical accident what does bother me is people say fact when its still a maybe.

No, theories are not facts, and I never said they were. Please try to understand what we are telling you. A theory is a complete scientific explanation for something in nature. It contains and explains many facts and observations, and it makes predictions. In science, theories include the Theory of Relativity, the Theory of Evolution, Atomic Theory, the Germ Theory of Disease, and so forth. Theories become accepted in a given scientific field when the evidence for them becomes overwhelming--that included ToE alone with these others I've named. Get it?

The fact of evolution is the simple fact that populations change over time. This is observable, and forms part of the basis of ToE. Get it?

 

[Sunstone]

What I don't understand about evolution is this: If we evolved from slime, but we're no longer slime, how come politicians and pundits are still slime even today?

 

[Azakel]

What I don't understand about evolution is this: If we evolved from slime, but we're no longer slime, how come politicians and pundits are still slime even today?

They're a Subspecies?
^_^

 

[painted wolf]

hey don't be so mean to the slime... what did it ever do to you?

wa:do

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., remember I was toddling along with evidence. I would greatly appreciate it if people, especially people who deny that this evidence exists, would respond to it in some way, instead of dragging in extraneous lies from creationist websites, because it distracts us from the task at hand, which is evaluating this evidence. After all, if you're going to deny it exists, don't you need to look at it?

Now we turn to a huge piece of evidence which unfortunately is bit technical and harder to understand, DNA.

It's hard to remember how long ago Darwin figured evolution out, and how little was known about the world. There was no modern genetics, no understanding at all of this subject. Darwin never read Mendel, whose work was ignored for decades. So Darwin had no idea how inheritance worked. He had no concept of how a trait was passed from one generation to the next.

But he knew that, for his theory to be true, there must be some such mechanism. There must be some physical thing in our bodies that can convey from a parent generation to a child generation instructions for reproducing itself. It also must be able to mix traits from male and female parents, and it must also occasionally make "errors," that is, random changes in these instructions. He had no idea what it would look like, only that it must exist.

More than this, ToE* predicts that whatever this mechanism is, it must be the same for all living things. Wow, that's a big, gutsy prediction. Why must it be the same? Because ToE says that all living things descended from a single common ancestor. So this core trait, the mechanism of reproduction, would have to be the same, whether for yeast, slugs, daffodils or whales. If we did not find such a trait, ToE would be falsified.**

Decades after Darwin made this bold prediction, it was verified, with the discovery of DNA. DNA does all the things that ToE predicts, and, amazingly, every living creature reproduces by DNA. From E. coli to an African Elephant--to you--DNA. By meosis and mitosis, it mixes up the traits of both parents. And it exhibits random mutations. Which, contrary to the lies you've read on creationist website, can be neutral, harmful, or beneficial. These mutations generate the random changes that are the creative material from which natural selection culls.

It also turns out that DNA will confirm, predict, and explain many things about ToE, many of which I've been explaining, but that gets too long for one post, so later on that.

 

[England my lionheart]

O.K., remember I was toddling along with evidence. I would greatly appreciate it if people, especially people who deny that this evidence exists, would respond to it in some way, instead of dragging in extraneous lies from creationist websites, because it distracts us from the task at hand, which is evaluating this evidence. After all, if you're going to deny it exists, don't you need to look at it?

Now we turn to a huge piece of evidence which unfortunately is bit technical and harder to understand, DNA.

It's hard to remember how long ago Darwin figured evolution out, and how little was known about the world. There was no modern genetics, no understanding at all of this subject. Darwin never read Mendel, whose work was ignored for decades. So Darwin had no idea how inheritance worked. He had no concept of how a trait was passed from one generation to the next.

But he knew that, for his theory to be true, there must be some such mechanism. There must be some physical thing in our bodies that can convey from a parent generation to a child generation instructions for reproducing itself. It also must be able to mix traits from male and female parents, and it must also occasionally make "errors," that is, random changes in these instructions. He had no idea what it would look like, only that it must exist.

More than this, ToE* predicts that whatever this mechanism is, it must be the same for all living things. Wow, that's a big, gutsy prediction. Why must it be the same? Because ToE says that all living things descended from a single common ancestor. So this core trait, the mechanism of reproduction, would have to be the same, whether for yeast, slugs, daffodils or whales. If we did not find such a trait, ToE would be falsified.**

Decades after Darwin made this bold prediction, it was verified, with the discovery of DNA. DNA does all the things that ToE predicts, and, amazingly, every living creature reproduces by DNA. From E. coli to an African Elephant--to you--DNA. By meosis and mitosis, it mixes up the traits of both parents. And it exhibits random mutations. Which, contrary to the lies you've read on creationist website, can be neutral, harmful, or beneficial. These mutations generate the random changes that are the creative material from which natural selection culls.

It also turns out that DNA will confirm, predict, and explain many things about ToE, many of which I've been explaining, but that gets too long for one post, so later on that.

What about the spontaneous generation of life (i am having a few beers with some freinds so its a quick one)i must say you people are just the same as muslims and creationists and take a leap of faith but have't landed yet you say this and that but nobody can answer the burning question,where did it all begin.
Just a quick one on the fruit flies,they are used by biologists for the reasons i stated earlier even nasa uses them for space research and the xrays were used to speed up mutations and no new genetic information followed.
I think that people who make comments about slime inferring people as should maybe evolve ito a adult.Merry christmas

 

[painted wolf]

mah questions.... you haz not answerd them....

wa:do

 

[England my lionheart]

mah questions.... you haz not answerd them....

wa:do

You are not answering my questions and i know why,i am not taking the high ground,i am an engineer not a biologist but don't pee down my leg and say its warm summer rain.
The reason nobody can answer me including physicists is nobody knows why not just admit it.

 

[ericmurphy]

What about the spontaneous generation of life (i am having a few beers with some freinds so its a quick one)i must say you people are just the same as muslims and creationists and take a leap of faith but have't landed yet you say this and that but nobody can answer the burning question,where did it all begin.

No. Completely different. Science proceeds by reference to empirical evidence. Right now, even as we type (well, maybe not this second, being it's a holiday, but you never know) scientists are trying to test hypotheses about how life arose initially. Those hypotheses are based on empirical observation and testing, not on reference to religious texts. No faith required, other than the faith that there is an external and objective reality.

Oh, and one more time: evolutionary theory has nothing to do with abiogenesis, nor does it ask or answer questions about how or where life arose initially.

Just a quick one on the fruit flies,they are used by biologists for the reasons i stated earlier even nasa uses them for space research and the xrays were used to speed up mutations and no new genetic information followed.

You keep saying this, but it's simply not true. New mutations arose which did not exist previously. Hence, new genetic information arose. How one would measure that information increase is an open question, since no one has a workable measure of genetic "information," but it's pretty inarguable that such information can, and did increase.

You've already been proven wrong about the impossibility of an increase in genetic information. That you keep repeating your assertion after it has been demonstrated to be incorrect is not a good sign.

 

[England my lionheart]

No. Completely different. Science proceeds by reference to empirical evidence. Right now, even as we type (well, maybe not this second, being it's a holiday, but you never know) scientists are trying to test hypotheses about how life arose initially. Those hypotheses are based on empirical observation and testing, not on reference to religious texts. No faith required, other than the faith that there is an external and objective reality.

Oh, and one more time: evolutionary theory has nothing to do with abiogenesis, nor does it ask or answer questions about how or where life arose initially.


You keep saying this, but it's simply not true. New mutations arose which did not exist previously. Hence, new genetic information arose. How one would measure that information increase is an open question, since no one has a workable measure of genetic "information," but it's pretty inarguable that such information can, and did increase.

You've already been proven wrong about the impossibility of an increase in genetic information. That you keep repeating your assertion after it has been demonstrated to be incorrect is not a good sign.

Aristotle bless him had a hypothesis that a piece of rotting wood could somehow turn into some other form of life,ok thats history and thats hypothesis not fact.
If i am wrong about the fruit fly experiment please show in what way i am incorrect .

 

[England my lionheart]

Please prove me wrong................if you can

 

[yossarian22]

If i am wrong about the fruit fly experiment please show in what way i am incorrect .

How do you define genetic information?

 

[England my lionheart]

How do you define genetic information?

any thing that was'nt there before that is positive ie it can improve the dna

 

[Autodidact]

What about the spontaneous generation of life (i am having a few beers with some freinds so its a quick one)

What about it, and what on earth does it have to do with evolution?

i must say you people are just the same as muslims and creationists and take a leap of faith but have't landed yet you say this and that but nobody can answer the burning question,where did it all begin.

I understand that scientists are researching this, but why do you keep bringing it up in a thread on evolution?

Just a quick one on the fruit flies,they are used by biologists for the reasons i stated earlier even nasa uses them for space research and the xrays were used to speed up mutations and no new genetic information followed.
I think that people who make comments about slime inferring people as should maybe evolve ito a adult.Merry christmas

[Bill Maher mode] New rule: Nobody gets to make affirmative statements about things they can't even define. [/Bill Maher mode] How on earth do you know whether there was any "new genetic information," if you don't know what "new genetic information" is?

 

[Autodidact]

You are not answering my questions and i know why,i am not taking the high ground,i am an engineer not a biologist but don't pee down my leg and say its warm summer rain.
The reason nobody can answer me including physicists is nobody knows why not just admit it.

Which questions of yours have I failed to answer? Are they related to evolution in any way?

 

[Autodidact]

Please prove me wrong................if you can

I'd be happy to. Now, you are asserting that there is an absence of something you are calling "new genetic information." If you will be so kind as to tell me what "new genetic information" is, then we can figure out whether there was any in this experiment.

 

[Autodidact]

any thing that was'nt there before that is positive ie it can improve the dna

You mean like an ability to digest nylon?

 

[yossarian22]

any thing that was'nt there before that is positive ie it can improve the dna

But positive traits are entirely relative. Sickle cell anemia is not a good thing, unless you are in a country with a high incidence of malaria. It comes down to what genetic information is. If you force mutations onto something, via radiation or other chemicals, you will see a change in genetic information. Whether good or bad is entirely random. The fruit flies exposed to radiation would have a higher incidence of cancer, signifying that they did mutate. But not for the better.

 

[England my lionheart]

But positive traits are entirely relative. Sickle cell anemia is not a good thing, unless you are in a country with a high incidence of malaria. It comes down to what genetic information is. If you force mutations onto something, via radiation or other chemicals, you will see a change in genetic information. Whether good or bad is entirely random. The fruit flies exposed to radiation would have a higher incidence of cancer, signifying that they did mutate. But not for the better.

Are you wrigling