Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

[painted wolf]

we have not come to a complete stop... we have evolved quite a bit lately.
New Insights Into The Evolution Of The Human Genome
Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds
Natural Selection Has Strongly Influenced Recent Human Evolution, Study Finds

as for theory, you are using the 'vernacular' term not the scientific term. You can't get any higher in science than Theory. In science the unproven concept is a hypothesis or a guess.

wa:do

 

[camanintx]

OK i agree with the mutations holding new information and the Toe be possible but it is still a theory and would have to be extemely slow as we and other species have come to a complete stop otherwise.

If the people who actually study the human genome don't think we have come to an evolutionary standstill, why should we? In fact, the evidence suggests that human evolution is accelerating.

 

[England my lionheart]

Then i would ask why have many scientists dropped the toe because of the many missing links and although the scientific community still believe in evolution the darwin and the other chap whom i have forgotten have been dropped.
I only know this beause my freind is a well respected scientist and he explained why,i cannot remember it all but it was something like ,just because we and apes have a very simmilar skeleton does nt mean we are in any way linked ad the toe is more of a belief than fact these days.

 

[camanintx]

Then i would ask why have many scientists dropped the toe because of the many missing links and although the scientific community still believe in evolution the darwin and the other chap whom i have forgotten have been dropped.
I only know this beause my freind is a well respected scientist and he explained why,i cannot remember it all but it was something like ,just because we and apes have a very simmilar skeleton does nt mean we are in any way linked ad the toe is more of a belief than fact these days.

If you think that the TOE relies only on skeletons as evidence of our relation to other primates, maybe you need to brush up on your biology a little.

 

[England my lionheart]

we have not come to a complete stop... we have evolved quite a bit lately.
New Insights Into The Evolution Of The Human Genome
Human Genome Shows Proof of Recent Evolution, Survey Finds
Natural Selection Has Strongly Influenced Recent Human Evolution, Study Finds

as for theory, you are using the 'vernacular' term not the scientific term. You can't get any higher in science than Theory. In science the unproven concept is a hypothesis or a guess.

wa:do

New insights etc are suggestions not fact and species adapting to their enviroment or cultural change does'nt =fact

 

[England my lionheart]

If you think that the TOE relies only on skeletons as evidence of our relation to other primates, maybe you need to brush up on your biology a little.

OK how about this ,two species can have homologous anatomy even though they are not related in any way. This is called "convergence" in evolutionary terms. It is now known that homologous features can be generated from entirely different gene segments within different unrelated species. The reality of convergence implies that anatomical features arise because of the need for specific functionality, which is a serious blow to the concept of homology and ancestry.

All about science

 

[painted wolf]

so how about the mutation that allows us to drink the milk of other animals into adulthood.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/science/10cnd-evolve.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin

other examples here: PLoS Biology - A Map of Recent Positive Selection in the Human Genome
FuturePundit: Brain Gene Allele Frequences Show Brain Still Evolving

Convergence can be distinguished from homology. Both in genetics and structure. This is a commonly known fact in Biology.
A cat and a dog show homology.
A dog and a thylacine show convergence. (not to say that there isn't also homology between them)

wa:do

 

[ericmurphy]

Part 1: Specified Complexity Is the Measure of Biological Complexity.
Dawkins writes, “First you first have to explain the technical meaning of ‘information’.” While that sounds reasonable, Dawkins pulls a bait-and-switch and defines information as “Shannon information”—a formulation of “information” that applies to signal transmission and does not account for the type of specified complexity found in biology.

It is common for Darwinists to define information as “Shannon information,” which is related to calculating the mere unlikelihood of a sequence of events. Under their definition, a functionless stretch of genetic junk might have the same amount “information” as a fully functional gene of the same sequence-length. ID-proponents don’t see this as a useful way of measuring biological information. ID-proponents define information as complex and specified information—DNA which is finely-tuned to do something. Stephen C. Meyer writes[/URL] that ID-theorists use “(CSI) as a synonym for ‘specified complexity’ to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity.” As the ISCID encyclopedia explains, “Unlike specified complexity, Shannon information is solely concerned with the improbability or complexity of a string of characters rather than its patterning or significance.”

The Inconvenient Truth for Dawkins: The difference between the Darwinist and ID definitions of information is equivalent to the difference between getting 10 consecutive losing hands in a poker game versus getting 10 consecutive royal flushes. One implicates design, while the other does not.

If ID proponents do not wish to use Shannon Information as a measure of the information contained in a genome, perhaps they would like to use their own quantifiable measure of information. So far as I am aware, no one has ever successfully and with support quantified the CSI of anything.

If ID proponents want to claim that information cannot increase in a genome, then they need to provide a) a measure of information so that this claim can be validated, and b) provide a theoretical framework that justifies their choice of that measure.

Unless and until ID proponents can develop a way of measuring the information content in a genome, they cannot claim that that information cannot increase by mutation.

 

[ericmurphy]

I now have 2 questions to ask of Darwinists who claim that the mechanism of gene duplication explains how Darwinian evolutionary processes can increase the information content in the genome:

(1) Does gene duplication increase the information content?

(2) Does gene duplication increase the information content?

No, not all by itself. But if a gene is duplicated, the second copy is not subject to selective pressure, and can therefore mutate without being selected against. If that additional copy mutates to a form that confers an added function to the genome, then information has been added to the genome.

The only way ID proponents can claim that information cannot be added to the genome is to demonstrate the impossibility of gene duplication and subsequent mutation to a new function.

 

[ericmurphy]

Then i would ask why have many scientists dropped the toe because of the many missing links and although the scientific community still believe in evolution the darwin and the other chap whom i have forgotten have been dropped.

Okay, we need to correct a few things. First, "Lucy" is millions of years old, not thousands. Second, scientists are not "dropping" the ToE; no biological scientist seriously doubts the reality of evolution. If you think I'm wrong, find one who does.

Third, are you claiming scientists are abandoning evolutionary theory because of the "missing links," or because of an alleged lack of missing links? It appears that you not only don't understand evolutionary theory; you don't even understand the objections to it.

I only know this beause my freind is a well respected scientist and he explained why,i cannot remember it all but it was something like ,just because we and apes have a very simmilar skeleton does nt mean we are in any way linked ad the toe is more of a belief than fact these days.

Your friend might be a scientist, but a statement that ignorant could not possibly be coming from a life scientist. The evidence that humans are not only related to other apes, but in fact are apes, is simply not open to rational dispute anymore.

 

[ericmurphy]

OK how about this ,two species can have homologous anatomy even though they are not related in any way. This is called "convergence" in evolutionary terms. It is now known that homologous features can be generated from entirely different gene segments within different unrelated species. The reality of convergence implies that anatomical features arise because of the need for specific functionality, which is a serious blow to the concept of homology and ancestry.

All about science

There's a difference between a homology and a homoplasy. A homology is a character shared by two or more species that is the result of common descent. A homoplasy is a convergence that only looks like a homology. How do we tell the difference?

A character is a homology if, when combined with other characters, we can construct consistent groups in a phylogenetic tree using it. It is a homplasy if we cannot.

All about the science. Distinguishing between a homology and a homoplasy is objective; it can be done by a computer. Convergent evolution can be objectively distinguished from characters shared due to common descent. Hence, convergent evolution is in no way a "serious blow" to the concept of common ancestry.

 

[Autodidact]

Then i would ask why have many scientists dropped the toe because of the many missing links and although the scientific community still believe in evolution the darwin and the other chap whom i have forgotten have been dropped.
I only know this beause my freind is a well respected scientist and he explained why,i cannot remember it all but it was something like ,just because we and apes have a very simmilar skeleton does nt mean we are in any way linked ad the toe is more of a belief than fact these days.

It is not the case that many scientists have dropped ToE. On the contrary, all of modern biology is based on it; that's why it is taught in all the universities, colleges and institutions of higher learning in the world, as well as the U.S. public schools. I believe that over 99% of working biologists accept it; it's the mainstream, consensus view.

And if you've read the thread, you may have noticed that I have not even mentioned fossils yet.

All anthropologists and primate biologists accept that human beings are a species of ape, because we are. It's not just our skeletons, it's our DNA and everything about us.

 

[England my lionheart]

It is not the case that many scientists have dropped ToE. On the contrary, all of modern biology is based on it; that's why it is taught in all the universities, colleges and institutions of higher learning in the world, as well as the U.S. public schools. I believe that over 99% of working biologists accept it; it's the mainstream, consensus view.

And if you've read the thread, you may have noticed that I have not even mentioned fossils yet.

All anthropologists and primate biologists accept that human beings are a species of ape, because we are. It's not just our skeletons, it's our DNA and everything about us.

Again it is a view or suggestion.

 

[England my lionheart]

homoplasy
A collection of phenomena that leads to similarities in character states for reasons other than inheritance from a common ancestor. These include convergence, parallelism, and reversal.

 

[Autodidact]

Again it is a view or suggestion.

In much the same way that the germ theory of disease is a view or suggestion. About the same percentage of epidemiologists and medical researchers accept the germ theory of disease as biologists accept the ToE. It is THE only accepted, mainstream, consensus theory of modern biology.

 

[Autodidact]

homoplasy
A collection of phenomena that leads to similarities in character states for reasons other than inheritance from a common ancestor. These include convergence, parallelism, and reversal.

Right. For example bird wings and bat wings show homoplasy; they look (from the otuside) and function in a similar way, because both are flying animals. When we look below the surface, we see that they are not homologous; their internal structure (and DNA) is quite different because birds and bats are only distantly related by ancestry. The homology, which is between birds and whales and humans and moles and all other mammals, does not go according to function; it goes according to ancestry. Do you see what I mean?

 

[camanintx]

OK how about this ,two species can have homologous anatomy even though they are not related in any way. This is called "convergence" in evolutionary terms. It is now known that homologous features can be generated from entirely different gene segments within different unrelated species. The reality of convergence implies that anatomical features arise because of the need for specific functionality, which is a serious blow to the concept of homology and ancestry.

All about science

If the data points were further apart as you went back in time, I would say you have a good argument for convergence, but when we compare humans and apes going back thousands of years, all of the data points get closer together, until you only have one set of data points. How can you mistake this for convergence?

 

[roli]

It is not the case that many scientists have dropped ToE. On the contrary, all of modern biology is based on it; that's why it is taught in all the universities, colleges and institutions of higher learning in the world, as well as the U.S. public schools. I believe that over 99% of working biologists accept it; it's the mainstream, consensus view.

And if you've read the thread, you may have noticed that I have not even mentioned fossils yet.

All anthropologists and primate biologists accept that human beings are a species of ape, because we are. It's not just our skeletons, it's our DNA and everything about us.

You are very knowledgable and resourceful in your diligent pursuit to set the evolutionary theory straight among the simple and unlearned, while setting yourself on this pinicle of the higher learned and I'm sure that all your peers ,atheistic communities and skeptical onlookers and all those who are supportive of the Darwin theory applaude you.
I think your brilliant in your ability to argue for evolution and I agree in the variation in species among their enviroments and have learned alot on this site and by my own research in this subject.

You seem very opinionated and headstrong that you and your sources are infalliable or at least give this impression. You have all the research at your disposal to set those who doubt, straight, but as in most oppositions brought to this thread, you completely attempt to annihilate and crush and even claim certain sorces invalid, as if you are the head of some evolutionary sensus board, that rejects or accepts certain views, articles and research findings.

You are an atheistic charismatic evolutionary zealot at heart, no doubt.

It's admirable to see your tenacity and your strong faith in what you believe, it's almost evangelical, not that evolution is a relgion or anything......?
I wonder sometimes if there is'nt more of an underlying pursuit to further aid the atheistic agenda and a humanistic endeavor, could be wrong ,but I could be right.

The potential most certainly exists and as many scientists are slightly maninpulated into keeping their reservations and doubts about the gaps ,missing links and questionable guess work in evolution to themselves for fear public and peer humiliation, as well as losing gov't grants and fundings,the endeavor to prove we evolved on our own without help is carried forth and propagated from the scientific pulpit.


I am sure your aware of the fact that not ,"all" scientists in the world are convinced in the Darwinism evolutionary theories and that there are alot of info out there that poses some very compelling questions to everything evolutionists bring to the table, but I am finding that this is an endless pursuit and there are one's who are better equipped than I and even more diligent to persist in debating. I think we will still be here by the the next evolutionary change,conveniently fitting to the evolutionists arguement that we are between the evolutionary change from one species to the other, although many say it is rapidly progressing

Although you may totally shred this to pieces as well, your not really qualified to destroy every source that opposes you
Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net

 

[4Pillars]

No, not all by itself. But if a gene is duplicated, the second copy is not subject to selective pressure, and can therefore mutate without being selected against. If that additional copy mutates to a form that confers an added function to the genome, then information has been added to the genome.

The only way ID proponents can claim that information cannot be added to the genome is to demonstrate the impossibility of gene duplication and subsequent mutation to a new function.

Once again, what we’re looking for is not just new COPIES of existing genetic information, those are not “new genetic information”, what we’re looking for is an example of an evolutionary process whereby a sightless creature, for example, gained new genetic information such that this creature can then see.

So far I have been given 2 criterias: A) can be verified, and B) can be falsified

Applying those criterias to evolution we'll observe:

A) Evolution (i.e. macro-evolution) can't be verified. The "verifications" or evidence appealed to for macro-evolution are those of the MICRO-evolutionary kind.

IOW, the observable micro-evolutionary changes are being unjustifiably extrapolated to support the UNobservable macro-evolutionary hypothesis.

B) Evolution (i.e. macro-evolution) can't be falsified either. When problems are brought up against evolution (such as the Cambrian Explosion) you will get 2 common reactions, 1) an appeal to ignorance, i.e. there must be some natural mechanism to explain things that we are just not aware of yet, or 2) true to its form, a naturalistic mechanism will be invented to keep their hypothesis coherent, e.g. punctuated equillibrium. These reactions makes it impossible for evolution to ever be falsified.

There you go, using evolutionist criteria for "science" so far does not make evolution scientific at all.

 

[camanintx]

Once again, what we’re looking for is not just new COPIES of existing genetic information, those are not “new genetic information”, what we’re looking for is an example of an evolutionary process whereby a sightless creature, for example, gained new genetic information such that this creature can then see.

Maybe you could start by answering the two questions I posted yesterday:

1. Do you consider repeated DNA sequences as separate "genetic information"?

2. Do you accept frame shifting as an example of DNA mutation?